Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The "Truth" About Second Hand Smoke: Which"Truths" Are More Truthful?

By Dragomire in Op-Ed
Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 05:50:41 PM EST
Tags: etc (all tags)
/etc

In 1993, the EPA released the findings of a study, in which they proclaimed that the effects of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS), also commonly referred to as Second Hand Smoke (SHS), upon non-smokers were indeed harmful beyond any shadow of a doubt. Their findings stated that up to 3000 deaths of non-smokers from lung cancer was directly related to ETS from smokers. Immediately, the media, and anti-smoking zealots, embraced this study as the proof that smoking should be restricted in many public areas.

However, shortly after the findings were released, a federal court ruled that the first six chapters of this study were, in fact, either non-truthful or sensationalized in their findings and methods. These chapters were ordered to be vacated from the study as a whole. As a result, the EPA is now no longer allowed to use those first six chapters of their findings as staunch facts, but still references them in regards to the dangers of SHS. Many other studies, which are decidedly anti-smoking, use the results from the first six chapters as the basis for their studies, and try to provide more proof of the findings within them.

Other studies, however, which are not paid for by anti-smoking lobbyists, seem to find far different results, or results that seem to reduce the sensationalist findings of the anti-smoking studies.


Many people who do not like smokers like to use some of the same arguments: "Your smoking will give me cancer!" is the rally call of choice. These people are referencing the EPA study that "proved" that lung cancer in non-smokers is the direct result of breathing in SHS. It has become a rally cry for anti-smoking lobbyists in recent years to get local, and state governments to pass anti-smoking laws.

Some of these laws are very radical, and in a few cases directly oppose people's rights to privacy within their own homes. Some such statewide laws and city ordinance are in effect within many states in the United States. For example: In Massachusetts it is illegal for a police officer to smoke, even while off duty, as per Chapter 41, Section 101A, of the Massachusetts General Laws; Montgomery County Md. had tried to get an ordinance passed making it illegal to smoke in your own home if it offends/bothers your neighbors (as reported by ABC News 20/20), some towns in other states have similar ordinances in place, and enacted; California passed a law making it illegal to smoke in bars/restaurants, and Delaware has recently passed the same law (other states are also considering it); New York city has made a law requiring that smoking sections in restaurants must be completely sealed off from non-smoking sections and must use separate ventilation (servers and customers must pass through what is essentially an air-lock, to ensure that no air intermingles between smoking and non-smoking sections); etc.

Each of these local, or statewide laws can trace their beginings to the EPA's well publicized findings in 1993 that labeled SHS as a Class A Carcinogenic, which can be directly responsible for lung cancer within non-smokers.

The EPA Report

In 1993, the EPA released the findings of a Meta Analysis of various other studies in regards to the threat of SHS on non-smokers. This Meta Analysis is the combining of the results of various other studies already being worked on, or completed.

The EPA found 33 such studies happening at the time they began their Meta Analysis. They dropped 2 of those studies from their analysis, and then later dropped a third that they didn't agree with. From these 30 studies they began to form their conclusions. In the end, however, the EPA only used the findings of 11 of the 30 studies.

One such conclusion was that non-smokers subjected to SHS received the "equivalent of about one-fifth of a cigarette per day." In other words, every 5 days would give the non-smoker the effective nicotine levels of a single cigarette within their blood, according to the EPA's report. However, other studies have since come forth do dispute this. These studies, which actually monitor nicotine levels within the blood of non-smokers who work in smoky environments, say that the non-smoker gets the equivalent of 6 cigarettes per year, instead of 6 cigarettes every 30 days like the EPA suggested.

Because of how they found their findings, the EPA gave SHS a Relative Risk (RR) rating of 1.19.

Relative Risk is measured in percentiles. In order to understand what this means, the average relative risk for something is considered 1.0. Any rise in the RR means there is that much of a percentage of whatever you are comparing will happen, while any lowering will mean the risk is reduced.

By giving SHS a RR of 1.19, the EPA states there is a 19% increase in the chance of getting lung cancer from second hand smoke. So if 100 non-smokers who never got exposed to SHS got lung cancer, of those who were exposed to SHS, there should be 119 cases of lung cancer. This, however, goes of their assertion that non-smokers around smokers gain the equivalent of one-fifth a cigarette per day.

Normally, any RR of below 2.0 is thrown out as being inconsequential. RR's of less than 2.0 are considered the result of bias or human error. In the EPA's case, however, they decided that the findings of a RR of 1.19 was indeed significant, and needed to be addressed.

Through their method, they discerned that up to 3000 cases of lung cancer per year, in non-smokers, were the direct result of SHS. It should be noted, however, that in order to get their numbers to be this high, the EPA doubled their margin of error for the findings while the studies were already taking place. In other words, the results were below expectations, and they changed the odds to get the results they wanted.

Thus, with a RR of 1.19, the EPA determined that SHS was a Class A Carcinogen. One-thing readers should take note, however, is that the EPA has given other substances a rating of 2.6 or higher (exposure is 160%, or higher, more likely to harm someone exposed to them vs. those not exposed to them) and not labeled them as Class A Carcinogens.

After The Report

After the EPA released their findings, the media and anti-smoking lobbyists, took it as a call to arms about banning smoking in certain areas. The rally cries of being around smokers was as good as signing a non-smoker's death warrant became commonly heard, and are still heard today. However, the Congressional Research Service issued their review of the EPA's findings in 1995. They were, in fact, highly critical of the findings, and found things within them that could bring the findings into question. Problems arose in the validity of the findings. Among those problems include, but are not limited to:

According to the CRS "The studies relied primarily on questionnaires to the case and control members, or their surrogates, to determine EST exposure and other information pertinent to the studies."

The CRS pointed out that "from a group of 30 studies. . six found a statistically significant (but small) effect, 24 found no statistically significant effect and six of the 24 found a passive smoking effect opposite to the expected relationship."

Three other large US studies were in progress during the EPA's study. The EPA used data from one [i]ncompleted study, the Fontham study, and ignored the other two, Brownson and Kabat.

The Fontham study showed a small increase in risk. The CRS report referred to it as "a positive risk that was barely statistically significant."

The CRS report said the Brownson study, which the EPA ignored, showed "no risk at all."

The above quotes taken from Davehitt.com.

By using findings from an uncompleted study along with their own, and ignoring the results of studies that disagreed with the studies chosen, it became questionable to members of the CRS as to whether the EPA's study was free of bias.

Because of the CRS' doubts, the tobacco industry sued the EPA over the study, claiming that the EPA had pre-conceived notions and results before the study was even begun; that the EPA's doubling of the margin of error in their findings was for the sole purpose of providing the numbers the EPA wanted (EPA had already ignored nearly half the data found in the studies, and still hadn't come up with the numbers they wanted); that the EPA released the findings before all the research was completed; and other reasons.

The Judgment

On July 17, 1998, Judge William Osteen finally passed judgment on the case. In a 92 page judgment, he found partially for the plaintiffs (the tobacco industry) in the case, and passed a summary judgment in their favor.

While this judgment did not totally destroy the EPA's report, he did order that the first six chapters of the findings be removed, or vacated as the term goes, from the public record as being biased and unsound. As a result, the EPA is no longer allowed to use these vacated parts of the study to try and show the effects of SHS on non-smokers.

Some choice quotes from the judgment are as follows (any emphasis is mine):

--"First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA "cherry picked" its data. Without criteria for pooling studies into a meta- analysis, the court cannot determine whether the exclusion of studies likely to disprove EPA's a priori hypothesis was coincidence or intentional. Second, EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines."--

--"In summary, Plaintiffs raise legitimate questions not addressed in the record regarding EPA's bioplausibility theory. If confronted by a representative committee that voiced industry concerns, EPA would likely have had to resolve these issues in the record. It is not clear whether EPA could have or can do so. These issues are more than periphery. If EPA's a priori hypothesis fails, EPA has no justification for manipulating the Agency's standard scientific methodology."--

--"Plaintiffs contest that EPA excluded studies and data on workplace and childhood exposure to ETS, as well as the "two largest and most recent" U.S. spousal smoking studies, because inclusion would have undermined EPA's claim of a causal association between ETS exposure and lung cancer. 35 (Conformed Mem. Supp. >Pls.' Mot. Summ. J. at 66.) In its memorandum before this court, EPA offers four reasons for excluding the workplace and childhood data.

"First, such data are less extensive and therefore less reliable." (Conformed Mem. Supp. EPA's Cross Mot. Part. Summ. J. at 88.) EPA's three citations to the record do not support this

All three citations state there is less information in the disputed studies. One of Dr. Brown's draft responses also calls the disputed studies inadequate, without reason or explanation. IAQC also recognized the disputed studies contained less information, however, IAQC concluded "the report should review and comment on the data that do exist . . . ." SAB 1991 Review at 5 (JA 9,470). The court has also found no record support or reason for the assertion that smaller studies are less reliable for purposes of meta-analysis. The purpose of meta-analysis is utilization of smaller studies."--

--"The record and EPA's explanations to the court make it clear that using standard methodology, EPA could not produce statistically significant results with its selected studies. Analysis conducted with a .05 significance level and 95% confidence level included relative risks of 1. Accordingly, these results did not confirm EPA's controversial a priori hypothesis. In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90%. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. EPA's conduct raises several concerns besides whether a relative risk of 1.19 is credible evidence supporting a Group A classification. First, with such a weak showing, if even a fraction of Plaintiffs' allegations regarding study selection or methodology is true, EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between ETS and lung cancer."--

--"In this case, EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the Act's procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act's authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs, products and to influence public opinion. In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers. EPA's conduct left substantial holes in the administrative record. While so doing, produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency's research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer. Gathering all relevant information, researching, and disseminating findings were subordinate to EPA's demonstrating ETS a Group A carcinogen."--

Most of the media, however, ignored the ruling, and the findings. Because most of the media has ignored this ruling, the anti-smoking lobby is still able to sway public opinion their way.

Because of this, the cry of "second hand smoke causes cancer in non-smokers" is still heard today. Even with studies like these, that find that the risk of getting lung cancer, or other diseases, from SHS is not non-existant but it is much lower than earlier beleived and hyped.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o ABC News 20/20
o studies
o review
o Davehitt.c om
o judgment
o studies [2]
o these
o Also by Dragomire


Display: Sort:
The "Truth" About Second Hand Smoke: Which"Truths" Are More Truthful? | 478 comments (430 topical, 48 editorial, 1 hidden)
I`m not American, (2.63 / 11) (#1)
by FredBloggs on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 12:20:15 PM EST

and consequently never feel the need to read about or discuss `secondary smoking`.

and yet (none / 0) (#22)
by scatbubba on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 01:08:55 PM EST

you've read some of this story,and are now discussing it with me.

[ Parent ]
Its a perfectly well (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by FredBloggs on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 01:41:00 PM EST

researched and written article, as far as I can tell, but its just not something that I`d imagine would bother me unless I had an allergy to smoke or something. It just makes me think of Californians...probably believing they`d live forever if it werent for smokers in the neighbouring states.

[ Parent ]
Your country (4.00 / 1) (#64)
by bouncing on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:13:06 PM EST

You're telling me that the issue of second hand smoke is uniquely American? I find this difficult to cope with. In your country, does smoking not give you cancer?

[ Parent ]
I think... (4.50 / 2) (#89)
by Irobot on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:46:21 PM EST

The anti-smoking crusades are uniquely American. I don't think it's as much of an issue, if at all, in other countries.

Irobot

The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
[ Parent ]

I've always doubted the sensationalized (4.50 / 2) (#145)
by BLU ICE on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 06:53:25 PM EST

harmfullness of second hand smoke. However, I would prefer smoking to be banned in public areas, as it smells horrible.

"Is the quality of this cocaine satisfactory, Mr. Delorean?"
"As good as gold."

-- I am become Troll, destroyer of threads.
It's like an encyclopedia...sorta: Everything2

[ Parent ]

Gas fumes smell horribly too. (none / 0) (#439)
by tekue on Wed Jul 31, 2002 at 07:19:01 AM EST

Let's ban automobiles from public areas, too. No, really.
--
Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been playful, rebellious, and immature. --Tom Robbins
[ Parent ]
Actually... (4.50 / 2) (#354)
by sean23007 on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 06:18:02 PM EST

It seems that second hand smoke only gives people cancer in America. But even there it doesn't really do it in significant doses. What he was getting at is that the American populace is absolutely terrified of cigarette smoke, unreasonably, and it borders on mass hysteria. Such hysteria does not occur anywhere else.

Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
[ Parent ]
A little less... (2.37 / 8) (#2)
by Dragomire on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 12:20:49 PM EST

rantish than my other post, which got hidden. Hopefully this can spread a little light onto many of those who like to claim that a single puff of SHS is enough to condemn you to death by lung cancer.

Not just cancer... (4.38 / 26) (#7)
by quadong on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 12:35:16 PM EST

You know, even if second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer, it's not like it isn't bad.  Let's see:

1) It smells bad.  You might like it, I hate it.  (If I came into a restaurant with rotten eggs, how long would it take the manager to throw me out?)

2) It makes it difficult for people with contact lenses (hard ones, especially, I think) to function as the smoke particles get caught between lens and eye.

3) It provokes allergic reations.  (My girlfriend cannot sit near smokers in an enclosed area, because she will go from feeling fine to having a runny nose, watery eyes and a headache in about 5 minutes.)

4) Prolonged exposure can make people sick.  (A teacher I had said that if she visited her aunt, a heavy smoker, for more than a few days, she would be constantly sick to her stomach until she left.)

So if you you just want to heighten awareness of the EPA study's flaws, that's fine, but don't try to make it out like smoke is totally innocuous.

stuff (3.25 / 8) (#16)
by Dragomire on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 12:55:10 PM EST

1. So do people who don't bathe/wash their clothes. They are still allowed in public places/buildings.

2. The same can be said of dust, car exhaust, etc.

3. Cats give me an allergic reaction. Do I have the right to kill every cat in the world?

4. Prolonged exposure to cats can cause me to have an attack very simillar to an asthma attack. If I don't get away from the cats (or clothes with cat dander on them) I can end up in the hospital, or dead. Again, do I have the right to go and kill all the cats in the world?

Like your girlfriend, I am in the minority of people who suffer more severe alergic reactions to certain things.

If you justify the fact that your girlfriend should be able to not have to deal with smoke, then by the same logic, I should be able to either kill every cat in the world, or force cat owners to constantly clean their clothes and check for cat dander upon them.

There's more cat owners than smokers in this world.

[ Parent ]

fluff (4.37 / 8) (#30)
by quadong on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 01:16:53 PM EST

"So do people who don't bathe/wash their clothes. They are still allowed in public places/buildings."

If you were dirty enough to provoke an allergic reaction in the people you were sitting near, you'd be thrown out of the restaurant you were sitting in.  In fact, I'm pretty sure that there are laws (in the US) that forbid you to be a health hazard in this sort of way.  If you were in a place such as a subway platform, where no one had to be near you for very long, you could get away with it, but only because, unlike smoking, you can't see the problem until you are near it.

"The same can be said of dust, car exhaust, etc."

People do not walk into buildings and shead dust continuously.  And when was the last time you saw a car inside an area not meant for parking?  It's not the same.

"Cats give me an allergic reaction. Do I have the right to kill every cat in the world?  [...] Prolonged exposure to cats can cause me to have an attack very simillar to an asthma attack. If I don't get away from the cats (or clothes with cat dander on them) I can end up in the hospital, or dead. Again, do I have the right to go and kill all the cats in the world"

No, and I don't care if you smoke when you aren't around people it bothers.  I won't bring a cat near you and you don't bring your smoke near me.  Your argument is fluff.  I'm not asking that ciggarettes be banned, I simply don't want them to make me uncomfortable.

[ Parent ]

Well... (4.00 / 4) (#70)
by Irobot on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:25:32 PM EST

See my response labeled "Homeless" above. As to the health problems, that's the point of the article - there's a point of contention about whether SHS is actually dangerous (note, I'm not making a claim one way or the other).

As for exhaust - it's not the parking; it's the driving. In any non-rural community, surely you'll agree that roads extend through most of the place. Hence, exhaust is indeed "shed continually." (Another note - I'm not claiming that smoking shouldn't be regulated; I'm merely pointing out that exhaust is prevalent and is comparable to smoking outside.)

Finally, in the article that didn't make about cigarette taxes, I had a short exchange with haflinger about curry. Curry makes me nauseous. I avoid places that use curry. I would hope that if I requested it, a person using curry in my presence would stop. By the same token, I feel I don't have any right to stop them from using curry around me; I simply remove myself from their presence. Being an analogy, it's not perfect - but it's close enough to get the point across.

Irobot

The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
[ Parent ]

The problem. (3.50 / 2) (#77)
by haflinger on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:33:07 PM EST

You're assuming "remove myself from their presence" is an option. It is in some locations; however, I have a friend who lives in Montréal. I can't visit this friend because walking on the street there makes me sick. There are a lot of smokers there. I worry about what happens to people like me who are born there.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
Hello! (4.00 / 3) (#88)
by Irobot on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:42:36 PM EST

I figured I'd see some of your posts here. I hope you don't mind my referencing some of our previous conversation. Glad to chat with you again...

Yeah - I agree for people like you (who have a severe reaction to smoke, for anyone who missed our other exchange) it sucks royally. And I don't have a problem with non-smoking areas. But, as I find myself saying over and over again to various people, I do have a problem with making it impossible, by law, for someone to have a cigarette. As we went over before, the tyranny of the minority thing.

Irobot

The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
[ Parent ]

There needs to be balance. (4.50 / 2) (#94)
by haflinger on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 03:00:10 PM EST

It's just so difficult because of the way smoke spreads around. I wish we could just get smokers to switch over to chewing tobacco or something. But yeah: I think the solution, long-term, might be to create genuinely ventilated areas in public places where smokers could go and be inoffensive.

But given our astonishing lack of success even getting women to not wear perfume on the bus, I don't see it happening.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]

Here in Edmonton (4.00 / 2) (#101)
by jmzero on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 03:21:24 PM EST

We have a restaurant smoking law here that works really well for us non-smokers, and works passably for smokers.  Restaurants, or sections of restaurants, are non-smoking unless they disallow entry to minors.

The "minors" part of it is sort of irrelevant, but it meant the law got through because it was "for the children".

I never have to deal with smoke in the restaurants I go to.  Smokers still have plenty of places to go (because existing restaurants have the option of setting up a lounge area - and the market provides for the demand).

There was a lot of yacking when it first went through - then people realized that it wasn't the end of the world.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

But what about bars? (none / 0) (#108)
by haflinger on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 03:49:17 PM EST

In the early '90s, I lived in Halifax, a city with many demerits but one particular merit: it doesn't have a lot of smokers. I could go to bars.

Since I left Halifax, I've had to give it up pretty much completely. I miss them.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]

I don't know (ntwr) (4.00 / 1) (#113)
by jmzero on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 04:15:37 PM EST

I'm not much for the bar scene, so I don't rightly know.  I believe Richards Pub, and a few others, are non-smoking.  The law doesn't directly affect bars, as they're naturally "no minors".
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]
Bars are unaffected (4.00 / 1) (#156)
by gauntlet on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 07:31:27 PM EST

Bars are restricted from admitting minors (under 18) anyway, so they can choose smoking, non-smoking, or mixed as they see fit, without regard for the smoking law.

Into Canadian Politics?
[ Parent ]

No (3.71 / 7) (#97)
by 90X Double Side on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 03:14:00 PM EST

there's a point of contention about whether SHS is actually dangerous

There is no argument that SHS is dangerous; there is an argument about how dangerous it is.

“Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity”
—Alvy Ray Smith
[ Parent ]

Not exactly (4.00 / 2) (#102)
by Irobot on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 03:22:00 PM EST

If the article is correct, the Relative Risk of SHS is deemed insignificant. I realize that they still qualify it as a risk, but an insignificant one. Very prone to propaganda manipulation, that. I cede the point, but only on the condition that it's also acknowledged an insignificant risk.

Irobot

The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
[ Parent ]

In any other field... (none / 0) (#386)
by unDees on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 02:10:03 PM EST

...19 percent would certainly be considered "statistically significant." (I'm referring to the Relative Risk factor of 1.19 cited above and compared with a threshold of 2.0). Why would a RR of less than 2.0 not be significant? How is this figure calculated/assigned?

All that aside, it's certainly inappropriate to choose to ignore the results of any studies that don't fit one's foregone conclusion.

Here's where a libertarian should jump up and say, "Your right to smoke your cigarettes ends where my airspace begins."

Your account balance is $0.02; to continue receiving our quality opinions, please remit payment as soon as possible.
[ Parent ]

The scale is the problem. (none / 0) (#441)
by tekue on Wed Jul 31, 2002 at 07:48:37 AM EST

...19 percent would certainly be considered "statistically significant." (I'm referring to the Relative Risk factor of 1.19 cited above and compared with a threshold of 2.0). Why would a RR of less than 2.0 not be significant? How is this figure calculated/assigned?
Because such small differences don't scale too well. If the risk of getting cancer is higher by 19%, that means that (FOR EXAMPLE!) instead of a 0.0010% chance you have 0.0012% chance, which — for obvious reasons — would be very hard to prove/disprove. Also, cancer can be induced by a huge array of reasons — heavy metals (in car fumes for example), wrong foods, bad working conditions, environmental reasons, and so on. It's very hard to take all the variables into the account, especially that some of those variables are important and unknown.

For example, I would propose that people who drive old cars which give out more dangerous fumes are also more likely to live in a close proximity of smokers — I'm talking about rednecks. People who drive new, expensive and enviromentally safer cars are more likely to live in the big cities, where they are less likely to live in a smoke-filled places. Do you think EPA took that, or any number of such conditions, into the account?

So, the real reason why 0.19 difference is considered unsignificant is that most scientific studies are much more scientific than based on statistical health data of huge populations.
--
Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been playful, rebellious, and immature. --Tom Robbins
[ Parent ]

Nonsense. (3.40 / 5) (#78)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:33:18 PM EST

If you were dirty enough to provoke an allergic reaction in the people you were sitting near, you'd be thrown out of the restaurant you were sitting in. In fact, I'm pretty sure that there are laws (in the US) that forbid you to be a health hazard in this sort of way.

And I'm pretty sure if you did that to me I could sue for discrimination and failure to abide by the ADA.

People do not walk into buildings and shead dust continuously. And when was the last time you saw a car inside an area not meant for parking? It's not the same.

Positively false. People do shed dust continuously. Where do you think it comes from? Dust is mostly dead skin cells. As for cars not being "inside" an area - given the # of cars in this country and the lack of HEPA certified air conditioners, do you really think there is any place on the continent that doesn't have car exhaust in the air?


--
In anticipation, John licked his own lips.
- A. Lloyd -


[ Parent ]
the ADA? (5.00 / 3) (#112)
by quadong on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 04:13:08 PM EST

Do you mean the Americans with Disabilities Act? First of all, being dirty is not a disability, unless you are so crippled that you cannot clean yourself, in which case, the dirt is not your biggest problem. Second of all, the ADA does not cover this sort of case. See this summary. It essentially requires restaurants to be accessible to people in wheelchairs.

Dust: Fine, people shed dust. But if the dust they shed is dead skin, then there's not a hell of a lot we can do about it. And even if there were, I've never heard anyone say "man, I got to get away from that guy, his dead skin dust is giving me a headache."

Cars: Regardless of the amount of cars in the world, when people say "there are exhaust fumes here", I interpret that to mean that there are enough that it really stinks of gas, not just that you know they are there because logically they must be. And again, if it's everywhere, there's not a lot you can do about it short of banning cars, which I don't advocate anymore than banning cigarettes. Either there aren't gas fumes in my restaurant or there are and there's nothing to be done about it. Not so for cigarette smoke: If you smoke at home and not in my restaurant, the smoke won't be in my restaurant and you still get to smoke.

[ Parent ]

S/Dust/Smoke (none / 0) (#440)
by tekue on Wed Jul 31, 2002 at 07:36:15 AM EST

Smoke: Fine, smokers spread smoke. But if the smoke they shed is cigarette smoke, then there's not a hell of a lot we can do about it. And even if there were, I've never heard anyone say "man, I got to get away from that guy, his cigarette smoke is giving me a headache."

As cigarette smoke was proven (as is stated in this article and confirmed by a judge) not to be dangerous, I don't really know what the hell are we talking about. People smell badly for a number of reasons.

Did you take notice, how badly people smell if they drunk alcohol the day before, especially if they didn't shower? The time has come to finally ban alcohol once and for all! Oh, wait...
--
Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been playful, rebellious, and immature. --Tom Robbins
[ Parent ]

Shedding dust (none / 0) (#407)
by geigertube on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 09:24:06 PM EST

"People do not walk into buildings and shead dust continuously.  And when was the last time you saw a car inside an area not meant for parking?  It's not the same."

IIRC, most dust is human skin cells. We continually shed them.

[ Parent ]

Ouchie, it's so incisive I've cut myself (3.75 / 8) (#42)
by Rogerborg on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 01:27:02 PM EST

    1. So do people who don't bathe/wash their clothes. They are still allowed in public places/buildings.

Do you see a lot of homeless guys in your local library? Also, would you like us to disallow those pesky "No shirt, no shoes, no service" restrictions in eateries?

    2. The same can be said of dust, car exhaust, etc.

Dust is unavoidable. Exhaust is recognised as harmful and already regulated. Way to prove the opposition's point.

    3 (and 4). Cats give me an allergic reaction. Do I have the right to kill every cat in the world?

Hmm, you've convinced me. I reckon I'll use that as a defence the next time I slay a smoker on the bus. "I know he didn't have a choice, but it was him or me." No... no, wait, unlike cats, smokers do have a choice, and actually, now that I think about it, I don't have to kill them to stop them. Quite the opposite.

Got any more irrelevant or self defeating points you want to bring to the debate?


"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Homeless (4.00 / 2) (#63)
by Irobot on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:12:04 PM EST

As a matter of fact, a Morristown, NJ public library tried to kick a homeless person out for exactly that reason (see #5). They were taken to court and lost.

Irobot

The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
[ Parent ]

Shrug (4.00 / 2) (#72)
by Rogerborg on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:27:14 PM EST

    As a matter of fact, a Morristown, NJ public library tried to kick a homeless person out for exactly that reason (see #5). They were taken to court and lost.

Gosh, a counter example (I assume, I'm getting a server error). Let me repeat my question, with added emphasis for the pedantically gifted. "Do you see a lot of homeless guys in your local library"?


"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Missed the "lot" (4.00 / 1) (#98)
by Irobot on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 03:14:31 PM EST

You're right, I missed the "lot." But it doesn't actually change the point that much; a library (at least in Morristown, NJ) cannot use personal hygiene as an excuse to prevent someone from entering. Now, perhaps if 25% (I believe that's the smoking rate) of the population was homeless, had offensive BO, and frequented public libraries, the ruling would be overturned.

Since you cited it and I'm curious, what is the legal justification of the "No shirt, no shoes" restrictions? I'm wondering if it's health reasons (maybe safety?), some prudish moral thing (*gasp* we can't have people walking around bare-chested!), or something else I'm not aware of...

BTW, here's the reference from the linked page. They don't cite an actual court case, just the NYTimes article:

Hanley, R. (1991, May 23). Libraries can't ban the homeless. New York Times, sec. B, p. 1.

Irobot

The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
[ Parent ]

You don't want to see me with my shirt off.... (4.00 / 1) (#100)
by Dragomire on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 03:17:56 PM EST

I'm a hairy bastard. I think those shirt and shoes laws were instituted so I would have even less reason to go around with my shirt off. You should be thankful, however, that I rarely leave my house without a shirt on.

I'm not as hairy as some people, but I dislike my own body hair enough not to force other people to look at it.

[ Parent ]

You're right. ;) (n/t) (none / 0) (#103)
by Irobot on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 03:23:02 PM EST


Irobot

The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
[ Parent ]

Split the difference? (4.00 / 1) (#236)
by Rogerborg on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 06:49:56 AM EST

Thanks for the Kriemer reference. Er, unfortunately, it rather supports my position. The District Court did indeed rule broadly in Kriemer's favour, but the final Appeal Court ruling upheld the library's right to enforce standards and expel patrons on both grounds of hygiene and on "no shirt, no shoes" grounds (both in clause 9 of their admission policy).

The district court's opinion unduly restricts the Library's authority to circumscribe admission to and expulsion from its facility and gives short shrift to its significant interest in achieving the optimum and safest use of its facilities. Indeed, we find that the rules are reasonable "manner" restrictions on the patrons' constitutional right to receive information. We also disagree with the district court's analysis and application of the doctrines of vagueness and overbreadth and further find fault with the court's determination that the Library intended to restrict Kreimer's access to it in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In sum, we are satisfied that the rules in issue pass muster under well-established principles governing facial attacks. Accordingly, we will reverse.
D. Equal Protection/Due Process

The district court found that rule 9 violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in two respects. First, the court held that the policy improperly:

makes personal attributes such as appearance, smell, and manner of cleanliness determinative factors in the library staff's enforcement of the policy. Because the library policy's prohibition on offensive hygiene is in no way restricted to instances of actual, material disruptions which are incompatible with the library's function . . . the restriction impinges upon individual liberty and sanctions that which may not be sanctioned merely on the basis of `annoyance.'

765 F.Supp. at 195.

Because in the district court's view this rule "imping[es] upon individual liberty in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner without cause, justification, or reason," 765 F.Supp. at 195, it held that the rule violated the due process clause. Second, the court determined that, since the Library enacted rules 1, 5 and 9 "with the explicit intention of restricting plaintiff's (and other homeless persons') access to the library," 765 F.Supp. at 195, such action constituted a violation of the equal protection clause.

We have already indicated that the district court's determination that the Library may only prohibit conduct that is "actually and materially" disruptive is erroneous. Furthermore, as is evident from our previous discussion, we find that the rules are not arbitrary. In addition, we find that the record is devoid of any facts that support the court's determination that the Library acted with discriminatory intent. In contrast, the record indicates that the Library enacted these provisions to provide a fair method to expel any disruptive patron, so as to achieve optimum Library use.36

However, I'm not going to crow about it, because the whole case was badly flawed from the start, being based on 1st Amendment. As far as I can tell, Congress has passed no law that limits free speech through mandating standards of hygiene, and so the courts had no business considering the case on 1st Amendment grounds.

How about that we agree that it depends on your state and municipality, but that it's most likely that (de facto) you'll have to fight to prove your right to admission if you're refused it on hygeine grounds?


"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Re: Split the difference? (4.00 / 1) (#241)
by ClassicG on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 07:53:55 AM EST

What you posted mentions the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution twice, and for a reason. It extends the prohibitions against Congress in the First Amendment to the state as well as federal government.

Section 1: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"

Given that, it would not have to be Congress passing the law in order to consider the case on 1st Amendment grounds. So, no, I can't agree that it depends on your state and municipality.

[ Parent ]

Curses, foiled again (4.00 / 2) (#247)
by Rogerborg on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 08:13:30 AM EST

    What you posted mentions the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution twice, and for a reason.

Darn it. I'd have got away with that on Slashdot.

I'll mention in passing though that I find the first section of the 14th Amendment to be very unfortunately worded. A priviledge can be interpreted as something that you're granted conditionally (so it's not a right), and an immunity can be interpreted as safety from prosecution for doing something wrong (so it's - arguably, and lawyers do love to argue - not a freedom). We could have saved ourselves a whole pile of contention by saying "the rights and freedoms", which is consistent with the wording of the 1st and 2nd Amendments, or we could have (gasp) just amendmended the amendments.

OK, how about municipal ordinances? That's not Congress or State. Got caselaw?


"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

Re: Curses, foiled again (4.00 / 1) (#257)
by ClassicG on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 09:59:07 AM EST

Caselaw...

Gitlow v. New York and Near v. Minnesota both said that the freedoms of the press and speech in the first amendment could not be abridged by states.

Jamison v. Texas could apply for the municipality question. She was "charged with distributing handbills on the streets of Dallas, Texas, in violation of an ordinance of that city which prohibits their distribution." The judges decided "We think the judgement below must be reversed because the Dallas ordinance denies to the appellant the freedom of press and of religion guaranteed to her by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution." and JOHN P. KING MFG. CO. v. CITY COUNCIL OF AUGUSTA "that is, whether it be by a Constitution, an act of the Legislature, or an act of any subordinate instrumentality of the state exercising delegated legislative authority, like an ordinance of a municipality or an order of a commission.'" It seems to say that states delegate some of their legislative power to municipalities, so municipal councils are, in effect, arms of the states, and fall under the 14th amendment.

[ Parent ]

Thanks (4.00 / 1) (#259)
by Rogerborg on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 10:18:34 AM EST

For the references, they give a lot of food for thought.


"Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
[ Parent ]

He does have a point, though. (4.00 / 2) (#75)
by haflinger on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:30:35 PM EST

The battle to keep dirty homeless people out of public libraries has been going on for a long while.

Public libraries usually get around specifically banning the homeless by posting lists of requirements. They frequently require patrons to be clean and act in a non-disruptive manner, and have other, similarly vague requirements which all sound nice but tend to get enforced at a particular segment of the population.

Sometimes they go too far over the line and get caught doing it.

And yes, I'm a librarian, but not a public one.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]

Cats are not allowed in restraurants (5.00 / 2) (#234)
by Evil Petting Zoo on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 06:22:05 AM EST

3. Cats give me an allergic reaction. Do I have the right to kill every cat in the world?
4. Prolonged exposure to cats can cause me to have an attack very simillar to an asthma attack. If I don't get away from the cats (or clothes with cat dander on them) I can end up in the hospital, or dead. Again, do I have the right to go and kill all the cats in the world?

There is a major difference between smokers and cats: in most cities smokers are allowed to smoke in restaurants and public places, whereas cats are not. I suspect the major reason for this is so people like yourself are not inconvenienced or put in danger.

Its nice being able to go into restaurants and not be put into a situation where you're around cat dander, isn't it? Imagine if most restaurants had two sections, one filled with cats and cat dander, and one where there were no cats allowed, but often had some cat dander in it. This is the type of situation that many people with allergic reactions to smoke face everyday.

Anyways, we're not talking about a complete ban of smoking here! Most anti-smoking laws only ban smoking in public places. If you want to smoke at home, or outside of your office, that's ok. Just keep in mind that there are many people who, for various reasons, do not want to be exposed to tobacco smoke.



[ Parent ]
Cat dander... (4.50 / 2) (#245)
by Dragomire on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 08:08:24 AM EST

like the smell of cigarettes (on smoker's clothes), is quite prevelant on the clothes of people who own cats. Even if it doesn't look like there are any cat hairs on an article of clothing, the dander is still there, and can cause irritation in those who are allergic to it.

My one friend owns 4 cats. I can't go anywhere near his house and expect to survive the night without being in the hospital. However, he also knows that cat dander is on his clothes from within his house. Therefore he, being the nice guy he is, keeps seperate clothes in his car, where his cats do not go, and changes into those when he comes to my home. He knows I can't enter his home, but when he enters mine, he tries to minimalize the dander on his person (some might still remain on his body, but he can't help that unless he showers every time he enters my house).

I've been out, in public, and have suffered mild allergic attacks (slight wheezing, sticky and puffy eyes) when simply near someone who owns a cat (even if I have no idea who they are), simply because the dander is there in their clothes. If it is in a restaurant, I ask to be seated someplace else, and explain that somone nearby must own a cat, and that I am severely allergic to cats. 9 out of 10 times, the restaurant is happy to comply, provided they have open tables; if they don't comply, I simply leave the establishment before the attack gets worse.

There are no laws prohibiting the wearing of clothes that have been around cats in public, yet there are laws prohibiting smoking in many areas. But in both cases, the ability to suffer from an allergic reaction are present, even if the cat owner is not actively holding their cat.

[ Parent ]

Wait a minute... (5.00 / 1) (#265)
by Dephex Twin on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 11:49:47 AM EST

This argument doesn't really make much sense to me.  These are two different things.  You said yourself that dander on clothes is like the lingering (and irritating) smell of smoke on a smoker's clothing.  But then you say:

"There are no laws prohibiting the wearing of clothes that have been around cats in public, yet there are laws prohibiting smoking in many areas."

But there are no restrictions against having smoke in your clothes.  I don't understand why you didn't compare the equivalent things.

Smoke in clothes/cat dander clothes: allowed although it can still bother a small minority of people.

Actual smoking/actually having a cat around: restricted in many places.

There is no disparity here that I can see.


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]

Ah... (4.00 / 1) (#311)
by Dragomire on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 07:50:50 PM EST

But the argument put forth is that the actual smoking is what is causing the problems. People aren't complaining about the smell of smoke on the clothes, but rather the smoke in the air.

The ones arguing about the allergic reactions to SHS are not saying just being around a smoker, while they are not smoking, causes the reactions. They are saying if someone is smoking within X miles of them, they feel the allergic reaction.

The difference being that cat dander (or any other pet dander, for that matter, I just happen to be susceptable to cats, my mother is allergic to any animal dander) does set off allergic reactions in people, even if the animal is not physically around.

So it seems the allergic reactions are only there for SHS when the cigarette is lit; while animal dander allergies can be triggered even if the animal is not in the vicinity, but can be triggered by someone with the dander of the animal on their person being nearby.

Take a look at all the posts about the allergic reactions to SHS. They all mention when someone is actually smoking. None of them, however, point to the fact that the smell is on the clothes.

[ Parent ]

I'm not just thinking about allergic reactions (4.00 / 1) (#329)
by Dephex Twin on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 12:26:04 AM EST

I wasn't really limiting the smoking irritation to only allergic reactions.  Some people have allergic reactions to smoke, but it is only a small minority... many less than the number of people who complain that smoking bothers them.

Those who are extremely allergic to cat dander are also a small minority, and those who are not allergic have virtually no way of even detecting its presence.

We can't ask that people who own cats must go through some sort of cleansing process before they go in public.  It just isn't going to happen.

Same with people who smoke, even though the smoke on the clothing of someone who has just finished smoking is almost equally irritating.

People aren't complaining about the smell of smoke on the clothes because there is no remotely reasonable solution to that.

However, smoking in a public place is an act the person is actively carrying out at that moment, so that's a whole different story.


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]

This has gone too far! (4.66 / 3) (#250)
by Mul Triha on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 09:05:24 AM EST

There is a major difference between smokers and cats: in most cities smokers are allowed to smoke in restaurants and public places, whereas cats are not.

That's it, this anti-smoking movement as gone too far when they ban cats from smoking in restaurants and public places!
QUACK!
[ Parent ]

So should it be against the law? (3.45 / 11) (#17)
by streetlawyer on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 12:55:51 PM EST

All these things are true of farting, which is one the few things in this crazy world which is still more or less unregulated.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]
false (4.50 / 4) (#21)
by quadong on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 01:08:42 PM EST

They have (1) in common, to a point.  Perhaps (4), but it'd be extremely hard to test.  

I think you, sir, are a troll.

[ Parent ]

response to 1 (3.00 / 6) (#86)
by miguel on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:39:07 PM EST

It smells bad. You might like it, I hate it. (If I came into a restaurant with rotten eggs, how long would it take the manager to throw me out?)

Honestly, why the fuck should a smoker care if you don't like it? True, it may be inconsiderate, but he has no obligation to you, unless you happen to own the place where he's smoking. You can just go to the owner of the place and complain about it if it really bothers you that much(he would very likely throw out the person with rotten eggs, but he is under no legal obligation to do so). If he doesn't care, then just take your business elsewhere

I want you to be free
[ Parent ]

Look bozo.... (none / 0) (#307)
by Tezcatlipoca on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 07:35:14 PM EST

It is not only the unpleaseantness.

Smokers are a danger to others.

What are you waiting to acknowledge that fact?

That sombeody is killed on in terrilbe distress so somebody can have his fix?

Addicts, all the same.
---
"Every duck should aspire to be crispy and aromatic." sleepyhel

[ Parent ]

blah blah (none / 0) (#315)
by Dragomire on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 08:03:28 PM EST

It is not only the unpleaseantness.

Seems to be the big issue.

Smokers are a danger to others.

So are people with guns in their hands; so are people who drive; so are people who walk; so are people who build buildings; so are people who tear down buildings; so are people who think; etc. In other words, everyone can be a danger to others, there's no getting around it.

Get in a vehicle and drive. You are now at risk from being hit by any and every other driver on the road. They are also all at risk from being hit by you. And every driver is at risk of hitting pedestrians, while the pedestrians are causing the risk of accidentes when they run out in the road.

People are a risk to each other no matter what they do.

What are you waiting [for] to acknowledge that fact? I think the fact that everyone is a risk to everyone else means there's not much to wait for.

That sombeody is killed on in terrilbe distress so somebody can have his fix? Like the same way drunk drivers kill and put families in terrible distress? Or hit and run drivers who aren't drunk? Or the police who beat suspects down? Or people who get on high horses and bitch and moan about other's choices just so that the ones on the high horses can be happy?

Addicts, all the same. Everyone is an addict of something. The most popular addiction in society right now is being online. Coffee also ranks high up there, as does fast food.

[ Parent ]

Rules and regulations (4.00 / 1) (#328)
by Eloquence on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 11:40:47 PM EST

So are people with guns in their hands;

As proven by the insanely high number of firearm victims in the United States. The answer, of course, is gun control, as practiced in most civilized nations.

so are people who drive;

That's why there's a huge body of traffic regulations governing everything from seatbelt usage to speed limits.

so are people who walk;

And, indeed, pedestrians have to obey certain laws. Don't cross a red light, don't distract drivers etc.

so are people who build buildings; so are people who tear down buildings;

That's why there are countless regulations covering both the creation and the demolition of buildings. You have to make sure that the ground is safe; that the building is properly protected against earthquakes, fires, storms .. You can't sell or rent away a building that is unsafe.

so are people who think; etc. In other words, everyone can be a danger to others, there's no getting around it.

Law regulates actions, not their mental preparation. Second hand smoke is a health hazard and an annoyance, and potentially carries addictive agents. That's why regulating smoking in public places makes sense, just like many other human activities are or should be regulated.

Banning smoking altogether would of course not help, however a long term reduction in the amount of tobacco consumption must be a major goal of society. Meanwhile, regulating smoking in public at least protects those not afflicted by the addiction.
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
[ Parent ]

you know.... (5.00 / 1) (#356)
by miguel on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 08:42:39 PM EST

marking someone's comments a '0' just because you disagree with them is very rude.

I want you to be free
[ Parent ]

that clears it up for me (4.00 / 2) (#342)
by lonemarauder on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 04:22:56 AM EST

Okay, so your smoking threatens my health and is revolting to me, and your response is something to the tune of "I don't give a shit"?

That example of reasonable approach to public policy is enough to make me want to ban smoking in public places.



[ Parent ]
Car fumes again. (none / 0) (#442)
by tekue on Wed Jul 31, 2002 at 08:00:14 AM EST

Car fumes threaten my health and are revolting to me. You give a shit?
--
Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been playful, rebellious, and immature. --Tom Robbins
[ Parent ]
I couldn't care less (4.46 / 15) (#10)
by oconnoje on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 12:38:48 PM EST

if secondhand smoke causes cancer. I dislike it because it smells foul and it irritates my lungs.
--
KTHXBYE
Same here (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by DesiredUsername on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 12:41:46 PM EST

and for people with asthma or other sensitivities it surely irritates that. But is that enough to justify making it illegal, especially in one's own home?

Play 囲碁
[ Parent ]
Smoking in your own home (none / 0) (#43)
by Karmakaze on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 01:33:06 PM EST

I seem to recall that the "smoking in your own home" law was that your smoke should not enter a neighbors home and annoy them.

If you play loud music at 1am, in many communities, I can call the police and have them ask you to stop. Do you have a problem with that law? In either case, it is pollution (noise or smoke).
--
Karmakaze
[ Parent ]

Burden of proof... (4.00 / 1) (#51)
by Dragomire on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 01:52:04 PM EST

The burden of proof, however, would probably not be with the complaning neighbor. Besides, all they have to do is be offended by your smoking in your house.

Some people might use that particular ordinance a bit much.

[ Parent ]

Burden of Proof on Sound Complaints (none / 0) (#61)
by Karmakaze on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:09:02 PM EST

It will, of course, vary from place to place, as these are generally town ordinances, but noise complaints do place the burden of proof on the complaining neighbor.  The police officer who comes out has to witness the disturbance personally for the complaint to be valid.

Presumably, if there's enough smoke to merit a complaint, there would be evidence.  Smoke embeds itself into cloth and building materials and hangs around.  I'd expect that would qualify as proof.

In any case, as a previous poster pointed out, the oft-referenced ordinance against wafting smoke wasn't passed.  Nobody is trying to kick your door down and take away your cigarettes.
--
Karmakaze
[ Parent ]

i dislike garbage trucks... (2.25 / 4) (#46)
by miguel on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 01:40:42 PM EST

because they smells foul and irritate my lungs. we should ban garbage trucks from driving in the streets.

I want you to be free
[ Parent ]

Garbage trucks don't smell... (3.16 / 6) (#54)
by oconnoje on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 01:57:21 PM EST

garbage smells. Garbage trucks get rid of garbage, thus eliminating bad smells.
--
KTHXBYE
[ Parent ]
Evidently (4.50 / 4) (#57)
by Irobot on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:01:07 PM EST

You haven't ridden behind a garbage truck on a motorcycle. They smell, regardless of whether they're full or not. Maybe if they were scrubbed clean each and every day, I'd agree with you...

Irobot

The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
[ Parent ]

In any case (2.66 / 3) (#62)
by oconnoje on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:11:52 PM EST

A more important difference is that I derive a direct, tangible benefit from garbage trucks -- they take away garbage. So I'm willing to put up with some smell in return for that.

What benefit do I get if I'm forced to sit near to a smoker in a restaurant or in a cinema or on an airplane? None. Smoking has no redeeming features whatsoever from a non-smoker's point of view.
--
KTHXBYE
[ Parent ]

That's the key (5.00 / 2) (#80)
by Irobot on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:34:25 PM EST

Smoking has no redeeming features whatsoever from a non-smoker's point of view.
I understand that what follows doesn't apply to the garbage truck. I'm kinda surprised that you put in the emphasized part; most anti-smokers would leave it out. And that's the crux of the issue, isn't it? Who gets to say one way or the other what is offensive? Before you flame away, I'm not against non-smoking sections or even non-smoking buildings. But I do have a problem with making it impossible to smoke everywhere, which seems to be the prevalent aim of anti-smokers.

Irobot

The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
[ Parent ]

re: not smoking anywhere (5.00 / 4) (#90)
by cicero on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:47:34 PM EST

But I do have a problem with making it impossible to smoke everywhere, which seems to be the prevalent aim of anti-smokers.
No, that's not true.
I'd be satisfied with you smoking anywhere that I don't have to put up with it on a continuous basis. What I mean by this is that I don't want to spend an evening at a bar, and then smell your smoke on my socks (!) the next day when I wake up. I don't mind walking past you on the street and holding my breath. Shit, you're going to have to do that when you pass me anyway if I've got gas. Not a big deal. It's when the smoke is no longer temporary that I have a problem with it. Unless of course I'm in your car or your home. In those cases, I realize that I'm in your domain of my own volition and that you have the right to do just about any damn thing you want to.


--
I am sorry Cisco, for Microsoft has found a new RPC flaw - tonight your e0 shall be stretched wide like goatse.
[ Parent ]
For a change... (5.00 / 2) (#93)
by Irobot on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:59:00 PM EST

Geez - a rational opinion on this topic. Read the anti-smoking comments; I think you'll find that many, many anti-smokers want to outlaw smoking almost everywhere. Perhaps I'm just falling for the "vocal minority" effect.

I agree with absolutely everything you said except the bar comment. IMHO, if the owner wants it to be a smoking-allowed establishment, he/she should be able to. It then becomes your choice as to whether to be there or not, as it would if you were in my car or home.

Irobot

The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
[ Parent ]

I don't think the majority.. (4.00 / 1) (#279)
by acronos on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 03:17:28 PM EST

wants to outlaw smoking everywhere.  I think they just want to outlaw it in work environments and restrants and other buildings where you cannot hold you breath long enough.

I have no interest in really outlawing smoking.  I want you to be able to smoke in houses and private places and designated public places.  I think that is the majority non-smoker position.

[ Parent ]

Private places. (none / 0) (#443)
by tekue on Wed Jul 31, 2002 at 08:06:44 AM EST

Except in communist systems and few certain exceptions, bars, restaurants, etc., are private properity.

I don't get it, it's so easy to get rid of the problem, simply put a 'SMOKING' or 'NON-SMOKING' signs on every shop, restaurant, etc., and everybody should be happy. But that inflicts on your "right to enter any bar, restaurant, or any other private properity and not be bothered with cigarette smoke". Well, that's not in the constitution, so go cry in the corner.
--
Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been playful, rebellious, and immature. --Tom Robbins
[ Parent ]

Second hand smoke is like this (3.42 / 7) (#14)
by czar chasm on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 12:47:33 PM EST

I don't smoke and neither does my friend (Liz), but we were bored one day and came up with this.

Everytime I see somebody smoking it doesn't seem to effect them.  They don't have the reaction to it like Liz and I have to it.  So it must be like a hamburger.  The smokers see the hamburger, salivate, and eat it.  Now, if Liz and I have the second hand hamburger, it's terrible.

Or something like that.

-Czar Chasm
add 2 bottles of NoDoz to email me

Eeeeewwwww. (none / 0) (#74)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:28:43 PM EST

There's an image I could have done with out.

LoL.


--
In anticipation, John licked his own lips.
- A. Lloyd -


[ Parent ]
What's wrong with that? (none / 0) (#136)
by Silent Chris on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 05:59:06 PM EST

What's wrong with a second-hand hamburger.  I love hamburgers.

[ Parent ]
Prior Review? [OT] (4.50 / 6) (#15)
by RyoCokey on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 12:50:43 PM EST

Kinda off topic here, but regarding invasive laws... why can't we have prior review of laws? (I.e. judicial review before they go into effect) Seems like it would save us the trouble of going through the courts just because clowngress passes a blatantly unconstitutional law.

Furthermore, it doesn't seem that much of a stretch, since Judicial Review is already established. Anyone think of why this would be a bad idea?



The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick." - John Dos Passos
The only problem is... (3.00 / 1) (#142)
by Run4YourLives on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 06:49:40 PM EST

...is that sometimes the courts seem wackier than the politicians!

I like the idea though, at least on "legal" issues, i.e. it would be great to have something in place that determined if the DMCA or PATRIOT acts are actually constitutional, before a whole bunch of people are convicted under their tenets.

OTOH, does this give too much power to the judiciary branch?


It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]

Ignoring the Judicial Branch (none / 0) (#422)
by RyoCokey on Tue Jul 30, 2002 at 12:45:10 PM EST

Well, I seem to remember president Jackson ignoring Supreme Court decisions, but that was a long time ago. It seems it's power would be not greatly enlarged over that already granted by judicial review. However, it's case load would increase dramatically.



The troops returning home are worried. "We've lost the peace," men tell you. "We can't make it stick." - John Dos Passos
[ Parent ]
Courts (4.00 / 1) (#203)
by PresJPolk on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 01:37:22 AM EST

US courts don't just round up laws and strike them down, though.  Laws get enforced, then either a conviction is appealed on the grounds of the law being unconstitutional, or someone gets sued for making an act under the law, because the law is unconstitutional.

It's done this way becuase the adversarial nature of the US legal system requires that both sides of a case have an interest involved.  Judges rely on each side of a case being made to its fullest, and unless each side has a personal interest in his side winning, you simply can't count on that.

This is why organizations like the ACLU will go and set up test cases: where someone volunteers to get arrested or otherwise be a victim of a particular bad law, and then that case is used to challenge the law.  This way there will be a person who really badly wants the case won his way, instead of just the ACLU which could give up at any time.

[ Parent ]

My thoughts on smoking... (3.92 / 13) (#27)
by Xeriar on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 01:15:41 PM EST

I don't care about SHS giving me cancer. It's a disgusting habbit, like having nonstop stinky farts (and continuing to eat the beans to support them) and never, ever bathing or washing your hair.

No, there may not be any 'harm' to it. It doesn't make it right for someone to force their B.O. upon me.

----
When I'm feeling blue, I start breathing again.

bah (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by tps12 on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:14:50 PM EST

No, there may not be any 'harm' to it. It doesn't make it right for someone to force their B.O. upon me.
But it doesn't make it illegal, either.

[ Parent ]
Nobody seemed to have a problem with it (5.00 / 1) (#109)
by mingofmongo on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 03:52:37 PM EST

before it was fashonable to have a problem.

"What they don't seem to get is that the key to living the good life is to avoid that brass ring like the fucking plague."
--The Onion
[ Parent ]

BULLSHIT! (none / 0) (#163)
by Cro Magnon on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 07:49:43 PM EST

My mom had a BIG problem with a bunch of her co-workers, who smoked like chimneys all around her desk. It was making her sick! When she asked them politely not to smoke around her, they just laughed at her and continued puffing away!
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
Attitudes to smoking (4.40 / 10) (#34)
by zakalwe on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 01:21:01 PM EST

Perhaps I'm generalising from my local situation  and comments here too much, but there seems to be a very different attitude towards smoking between the US and Europe (or at least the UK).

Here, smoking seems to be far more accepted, yet as a non-smoker, I haven't seen any of the problems that those in the US complain about - people just don't seem to consider it a big issue.  Day-to-day I rarely have to tolerate anyone smoking near me, but the laws are nowhere near as harsh as they seem to be in the US.  I may catch a tiny whiff of smoke if I walk past someone smoking, but that seems too small a thing to be an issue.  Laws against smoking in bars etc seem a bad idea too - shouldn't it be up to the proprietor?  I'd much prefer to vote with my money when I prefer a non-smoking area than try to force everyone to conform to my needs.

The US seems to have far more restrictions on smokers, and yet from posts here, people seem to consider the 'problem' far worse than they do here - despite the fact that smoking is also more common here.  Perhaps its due more to the fact that US cities have a higher population density, or that they are more prone to breathing problems/allergies (Or possibly are just more likely to complain)?

It's probably the population density (4.50 / 4) (#48)
by Karmakaze on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 01:44:15 PM EST

Before non-smoking areas were required by law, it was hard to go out to dinner or see a movie without breathing secondhand smoke.  It was problematic to "vote with my money", because the only option was not to go out.

On the other hand, some of the smoking regulations have just moved the problem.  Now that businesses can no longer have indoor smoking lounges, every entrance to a business carries a cloud of smoke around it.  So some people, who would never have been bothered by their co-worker's habit, now face it on their way in and out of work every day.

These days, the only real problem I have with smokers is among my friends -- and I tolerate it because they are my friends.  I can't say I enjoy heading home with a headache and watery eyes every time I visit certain people, but I'm not going to demand smoking be made illegal.  Neither am I going to end a friendship over it.  I do ask them to stay downwind when possible.
--
Karmakaze
[ Parent ]

The UK is hardly the least populated area on earth (4.66 / 3) (#71)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:25:59 PM EST

The fact of the matter no one in America noticed (or at least complained) much about second hand smoke until a few people started making a big issue about it in the early 80's.

I'm not saying it's an imaginary problem - just that before the mid-80's people who didn't like the smoke generally shrugged it off - these days they stampede around hollering at the smokers.

Personally, I'm in perpetual amazement that I could like up a joint and get less crap from the people around me than if I lit up a cigar.


--
In anticipation, John licked his own lips.
- A. Lloyd -


[ Parent ]
Well, I know people who complained (4.00 / 1) (#91)
by Karmakaze on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:51:30 PM EST

But then, I grew up in a household where somebody was allergic to cigarette smoke.  Therefore, when we went to someplace that was supposed to be smoke free, we'd politely ask the person smoking to either smoke elsewhere or later.

The key here, of course, is politely.  Haranguing people is utterly counterproductive.  People are much more likely to comply with a polite request than to an angry accusation.  Sure, if a polite request gets you a rude response, and the issue is very important to you, you can escalate, but there's no reason to start hostile.

Personally, I'm in perpetual amazement that I could light up a joint and get less crap from the people around me than if I lit up a cigar.

Heh, that reminds me of an encounter I had my freshman year in college.  I was in a basement reading room that had next to no ventilation.  A young man came in with a bag of weed and asked me if I minded if he light up.  I glanced up and mildly told him I'd rather he didn't.  He got very worried that I was a rabid anti-drug crusader.  I shrugged.  "There's no ventilation - if you light something, it'll get even stuffier in here."  It never occurred to him that someone could object to a joint for any reason other than that Nancy Reagan said so.  Weird.
--
Karmakaze
[ Parent ]

reason (1.00 / 1) (#96)
by krek on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 03:12:30 PM EST

It is a common perception, although I am not really sure if it is true, that pot smoke is just less offensive than pure tobacco smoke.

I am fairly certain that the smoke from pure pot, and to a lesser extent, pot mixed lightly with tobacco, lingers less and has less of a smell-staining quality to it. As well, most pot smokers enjoy the smell of of an 'L', while they still find the smell of a cigarette incredibly invasive.

I, personally, could hotbox myself for hours and never need to leave except for food and pee breaks, but if someone lit up a cigarette in my hotbox, I would NEED to get out to escape the smell; and I roll my spliffs with tobacco. I have never fully been able to explain this phenomenon.

[ Parent ]
There may be a reason for that. (none / 0) (#92)
by haflinger on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:55:50 PM EST

Personally, I'm in perpetual amazement that I could like [sic] up a joint and get less crap from the people around me than if I lit up a cigar.
I'll guess you meant "light." :) Anyway, see this editorial comment of mine for a possible explanation.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
Freaking Speling Erors! (none / 0) (#111)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 04:08:18 PM EST

i Think my brian is getting ahade of my fingres.


--
In anticipation, John licked his own lips.
- A. Lloyd -


[ Parent ]
Really??? (none / 0) (#215)
by Dephex Twin on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 03:26:36 AM EST

"Personally, I'm in perpetual amazement that I could like up a joint and get less crap from the people around me than if I lit up a cigar."

I'm sure as hell not amazed!  Those two are like night and day!  Cigars are like cramming an ash tray into my ass and then farting.  Cigarettes are extremely irritating and nauseating, but cigars make me wish I were dead.

Weed on the other hand is tolerable to pleasant.


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]

And yet smoke is smoke. (none / 0) (#370)
by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 09:07:41 AM EST

Being exposed to second hand smoke causes cancer, but you don't mind if it smells good?


--
In anticipation, John licked his own lips.
- A. Lloyd -


[ Parent ]
Lighten up! (none / 0) (#379)
by Dephex Twin on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 10:53:27 AM EST

I'm just talking about the smell for crying out loud.  I stay away from all of those different kinds of smoke, but that doesn't mean I can't have different opinions of how the smoke smells.

I didn't bring up health risks because it has nothing to do with my comment, it is something I'm not prepared to back up with sources, and because cancer is usually a huge downer in a statement intended to be humorous.


Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
[ Parent ]

Well... (none / 0) (#426)
by spiralx on Tue Jul 30, 2002 at 05:57:44 PM EST

... technically the population density in the US is a measely 73.7 people per square mile against 623.2 ppsm here in the UK. And even taking into consideration the far larger land mass of the US I would imagine that the UK is probably more urbanised than the US... our cities are less spacious after all due to restricted land area.

So I don't think population density is to blame. Given some of the comments here, I'm beginning to think it's psychosomatic.

You're doomed, I'm doomed, we're all doomed for ice cream. - Bob Aboey
[ Parent ]

The reason (4.12 / 8) (#105)
by cr8dle2grave on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 03:43:28 PM EST

Among middle class white Americans (that class which overwhelmingly constitutes the rabid anti-smoking movement) all other forms of social prejudice are highly stigmatized, whereas it's perfectly acceptable to dislike smokers. People, in general, like to judge other people and thereby elevate themselves. Smokers are the perfect target and are now the recipients of America's white middle class pent up desire to belittle and despise.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
Europe on smoking (5.00 / 1) (#157)
by Delirium on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 07:36:08 PM EST

Note: My experiences of smoking in Europe are mostly restricted to Greece, so this may or may not generalize to other European countries.

In Greece, smoking is far more accepted primarily because everyone smokes. Smoking rates are literally somewhere around 70-80%. By comparison, only around 23% of Americans smoke, so it's easier to portray the smoker as the aberration, the "odd one out" whose habit is causing a problem or at least a nuisance for the non-smokers (who are the majority). You can't do that when the person who doesn't smoke is the aberration, and the smokers are the overwhelming majority.

But I'd disagree that it's not causing any problems for non-smokers. In Greece I cannot go to restaurants that are indoors, because they have no non-smoking sections (since everyone smokes there's little demand for them), and with 70-80% of the patrons smoking, the heavily smoke-filled air is stifling (luckily I usually go in the summer, when most restaurants seat you outdoors due to a lack of air conditioning). Go to the bank, and the teller will probably be smoking and breathing smoke in your face as he or she takes care of your business (to Greece's credit, this is being phased out -- by next year there will be some regulations about smoking while on the job, especially in service jobs). For someone used to being able to pretty trivially avoid smoke, it's a bit of a shock to suddenly have smokers everywhere.

Now that said, I don't think California's way of going about things is necessarily the best. What's wrong with having smoking and non-smoking areas in restaurants? As long as they're well-separated, I don't see that it's necessary to ban the smoking areas. Most of the states in the US take this more moderate approach. But I wouldn't want to go to the other extreme (i.e. what Greece does) and provide few to no non-smoking areas.

[ Parent ]

Easy answer (none / 0) (#325)
by Grimmtooth on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 10:19:59 PM EST

Manners. Nobody over here has 'em anymore. Just read the posts in this article and ask yourself just how many mental cases we have over here.

The manners - consideration - are lacking on both sides of the fence. Smokers don't take responsibility for thier addiction. Non-smokers don't take responsibility for thier own actions. Nobody uses common sense. Anti-smokers are just assholes (anti-PEOPLE is another way of stating it).

It's something I've noticed for years in the US -- nobody over here wants to accept responsibility for anything. "It's not MY fault!".

I do have one amusement over the whole thing. I find it highly amusing that the anti-smoker fervor has been so prevelant in California's more populous areas. Ever come over the crest of a hill in San Diego and overlook Mission Valley? You can see the brown CRUD they call air there. These people are so wrapped up in SHS but wonder why they still keep dropping off like flies from lung cancer.

Loons, I tell you. Everyone over here is mentally defective or something.


[ Parent ]

So the EPA report was biased (3.53 / 13) (#40)
by Gord ca on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 01:25:21 PM EST

Your main argument seems to be that the EPA report was biased, relied on selective data, and reinterpreted the data to what they wanted it.

The ironic part: This article is very obviously biased, is highly selective on the facts it presents, and obviously molds the data into what the author wants to say. As I read on I find myself reaching for larger and larger piles of salt to digest this with.

(At least it isn't paraniod like Dragomire's previous pro-smoking story. There was one choice line that I was hoping to put in my sig: First it's smoking. Next it will be the Internet, video games, television, and movies. Soon even books will be banned. ... but I can't reference voted-down stories.)

If I'm attacking your idea, it's probably because I like it

I'm curious ... (3.20 / 5) (#44)
by sonovel on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 01:38:50 PM EST

Do you have data that suggests that the EPA did not act improperly with this report?

Seriously, I want to see more info on this story.

This writeup is more than interesting, if true.

If not true, provide your citations to disprove it.

[I really don't have a side here, since you are saying the writeup is biased and unfair, please provide some evidence.]

[ Parent ]

The person in charge (2.66 / 3) (#52)
by Dragomire on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 01:54:51 PM EST

of the EPA at the time still stands by the study.

She is a non-smoker.

[ Parent ]

So? (4.00 / 5) (#58)
by sonovel on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:02:04 PM EST

Someone who supported a study that might be bogus still supports it? What does that prove?

Were many of the component studies thrown out? If so, was it because they didn't support the thesis that SHS is bad?

Are the risk levels determined much lower than usually accepted as significant? If so, what is the justification?

And what does her status as a non-smoker have to do with it? Her smoking or not doesn't change the science. She may be biased, or not, but her bias doesn't change the data. If the data was used correctly, her biases don't matter. If the data was used improperly, that is unscientific regardless of her personal habits.


[ Parent ]

Goatmaster, what is your point? (2.33 / 6) (#65)
by sonovel on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:14:19 PM EST

My post is one step up from spam according to you, why?

I just would like to see the data that shows the flaws in this article.

I've asked and not received.

I pointed out the serious allegations that need to be addressed: picking data to support thesis, and using not statistically significant values to support a conclusion.

I pointed out that an argument based on a person's personal habits is irrelevant (fallacy of argument from source, or something like it).

When I post an on topic, reasonably worded reply, I get rated with a '1'.

I assume you are a ratings troll. If not, respond.

Since you aren't going to respond, why don't you go away, adults are having a discussion here.

[ Parent ]

ah bugger me with a teaspoon (1.40 / 5) (#79)
by Goatmaster on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:33:30 PM EST

It's your whining diary. Whining about ratings is just as annoying as whining about second-hand smoke. Since your self-worth is defined by your K5 ratings, I'll be nice and change it.


... and so the Goatmaster has spoken
[ Parent ]
Why do you care? (1.75 / 4) (#82)
by sonovel on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:35:37 PM EST

Why are you mod storming me? And why do you care about my diary?

If my diary bothers you so much, then ignore it.

[ Parent ]

Because, I care (1.42 / 7) (#85)
by Goatmaster on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:38:02 PM EST

And annoying whiners is one of the great pleasures given to us in this world.


... and so the Goatmaster has spoken
[ Parent ]
bias (3.50 / 4) (#69)
by Dragomire on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:21:12 PM EST

noting that the EPA disregarded nearly half the data they accumilated, especially since it did not conform to what they had already stated as their findings, probably does show that her bias may have influenced the way in which the data was used.

In any sort of scientific study, you cannot simply pick and choose which data you use. If I make a hypothesis that a certain type of acid will never burn human flesh, and then find that nearly half of my research disprooves/doesn't support that hypothesis, as a scientist, I would not be able to simply disregard that data as inadequate just to 'prove' my hypothesis.

Now, since the EPA had a bias already (the EPA had already come to a conclusion before the study began, not a hypothesis, but a conclusion), and she was in charge of the EPA, we can reasonably assume her bias was part of the EPA's bias. If she had any say in what data was used, and what data was ignored, then her bias would be shown to be a larger part of the EPA's bias.

As to if she had caused it, I can't say. But the facts in the case did prove that the EPA did not utilize the data correctly-- especially since they chose only the data that supported their conclusion, and ignored any data that might have adversely affected that conclusion.

[ Parent ]

You misread, you apparently agree with me. (3.33 / 3) (#87)
by sonovel on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:39:16 PM EST

Her bias is irrelevent.

What is relevent is the use of the data. Her status as smoker or not is immaterial.

Either they used bad technique to prove a point or not. Noone has defended this.

Look at my original question. I am asking for the poster to back up his assertion that this story is bogus. He needs to provide evidence that data wasn't "munged" and conclusions weren't made using statistics that don't support them.

[ Parent ]

You can read the judgment (3.66 / 3) (#49)
by Dragomire on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 01:47:09 PM EST

I did. And it's 92 pages long. There are points in which the jugement does not agree with the tobacco industry, but none of those points had to do with the way in which the EPA's study was conducted and concluded. The points against the tobacco industry were in reference to whether the EPA had the authority to run such a study, which the juge ruled the EPA did have such authority. The judge said they may have overstepped their authority on a few parts, but on the whole, they did have the authority to run the study.

[ Parent ]
A pile of salt (3.80 / 5) (#50)
by nusuth on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 01:51:39 PM EST

It looks like we can happily share a common pile. I find very hard to believe that I, the smoker, with all my defenses against tar and dust already overwhelmed, cleaning more than half of the smoke with my very lungs before someone else have a chance to breathe it, when all smoke reaching them is thousands of time diluted, all free radicals already reacted and all highly active carcinogens have already oxidized, poison them nearly as much as myself when I'm also breathing the very same "poison" air in addition to what I'm smoking.

This is precisely what many SHS "studies" suggest. Do you use your salt mine for those too?

For once I'm happy to live where I do.

[ Parent ]

good point (none / 0) (#200)
by sowellfan on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 01:20:33 AM EST

I don't think enough people understand what you just said. People just assume that the smoke that gets exhaled is just as bad as the smoke that is inhaled. Fortunately, the lungs make a terrific sticky filter, what with their alveoli and wetness and such. So the exhaled smoke isn't nearly as concentrated with the bad stuff, and anyone who inhales some of the air that the exhaled smoke mixes with has an extremely dilute concentration.

[ Parent ]
and now for some levity... (4.50 / 16) (#53)
by johann public on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 01:56:35 PM EST

Our good friends at Something Awful had some insights on all of this...

Smoking will kill you and rape your family
and
Nonsmoking makes me want to smoke
a little comic relief, and even some clarity?
Personally, I hate those "The TRUTH" ads...I don't mind smokers, (i smoke on rare occassions) and...I think that many anti-smoking people just cross the line far too much.

"FACT: Cigarettes contain ammonia, urine contains ammonia.

FACT: Cigarettes contain carbon, Hitler contained carbon.

FACT: Cigarettes contain oxygen, there is no oxygen in space so
there is no sound in space, and therefore cigarettes are full of sound."
-Zack Parsons (mocking TEH TRUTH!!1!!!)


and btw, i'll vote this up... (none / 0) (#59)
by johann public on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:06:48 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Ingesting urine (2.00 / 2) (#135)
by Silent Chris on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 05:55:17 PM EST

Would you ingest urine?  Or even ammonia?  I wouldn't.

And you seem to be missing a lot of the other "Truth" statements, like "This product contains chemicals that can be used as pesticides."

[ Parent ]

Don't forget other "truths"... (4.50 / 2) (#169)
by pla on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 08:09:26 PM EST

Cigarette smoke contains ammonia.
Cigarette smoke contains formaldehyde.
Cigarette smoke contains arsenic.
Cigarette smoke contains "pesticides".

The ads fail to point out, however, that *ALL* burning plant material contains the substances they mention. Pesticides, well, that seems a bit more subtly deceptive, in that nicotine powder makes a good pesticide. So does caffeine powder, but I'd like to see someone try to pry away America's #1 drug of choice...

Even more subtly, notice the utterly contradictory information "the truth" gives us... Consider these two points:

1) Adding ammonia to cigarettes increases the absorbtion of nicotine.
2) Light cigarettes only make people smoke *more* because people smoke until the reach their "normal" blood level of nicotine.

This strikes me as a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". If adding ammonia lets people smoke fewer cigarettes to get the same effect, by that second "truth", that seems like a *good* thing, no? Yet they present *both* facts as further "proof" of the evils of big tobacco.

Just for some background, I consider myself a non-smoker, though I will occasionally have a cigarette (Most surveys don't seem to have a category for "two packs or less a year", oddly enough). If I someday get lung cancer and die, I'll know perfectly well that I quite likely did it to myself. I won't blame the company that manufactures the bullets, however, when *I* have to pull the trigger.


[ Parent ]
Jesus Christ, people, it's just smoking. (3.84 / 19) (#81)
by Captain_Tenille on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:34:36 PM EST

This talk of being "assaulted" with cigarette smoke is a little extreme, I think. Sometimes, you just have to put up with other peoples' habits in a civilized society. I put up with the smell of pot smoke. I put up with Republicans. I put up with country music fans. I put up with Christians. I put up with crazy homeless people. I put up with not smoking in most restaurants. I will even not blow smoke on people if I can help it. However, if I have to put up with everyone else's crap, then I'm going to smoke in bars and if I'm walking around outside.

It won't fucking kill you.

Get over it, people. It's not the worst thing in the world by far. I will continue smoking my unfiltered Pall Malls, thank you very much. You can continue doing whatever the hell you do that I find annoying.
----
/* You are not expected to understand this. */

Man Vs. Nature: The Road to Victory!

That's the whole point (2.00 / 1) (#116)
by DeadBaby on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 04:27:55 PM EST

IT WILL KILL YOU.
"Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity -- in all this vastness -- there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us." - Carl Sagan
[ Parent ]
Which makes your sig all the more ironic. (n/t) (none / 0) (#132)
by evilpenguin on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 05:48:41 PM EST


--
# nohup cat /dev/dsp > /dev/hda & killall -9 getty
[ Parent ]
Hah. (none / 0) (#171)
by DeadBaby on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 08:15:17 PM EST

Yea, I guess it's kind of out of place.
"Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity -- in all this vastness -- there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us." - Carl Sagan
[ Parent ]
Cancer, annoyances, and indifference (3.42 / 19) (#83)
by bouncing on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 02:36:39 PM EST

Congrats. You've debunked one study that suggested second and smoke is harmful. What about every other credible study ever conducted that wasn't funded by big tobacco? Are you going to tell me that every credible scientific opinion doesn't say that second hand smoke invariably causes health problems!? If so, I have some ocean-front land in Wyoming I'd like to sell you.

I recently moved from Boulder, CO to San Antonio, TX. Although San Antonio's great, one thing I miss about Boulder is its smoking ban in bars. It's really just common sense.

It's proven that smoke from cigarettes gives you cancer. No one can argue otherwise. What you're contending is that if you breath smoke, exhale, and someone else breathes the exact same fumes, this is somehow not harmful. Health agencies will ban substances because at very high levels, they cause cancer in rats. But cigarette smoke, which at any level causes cancer in humans, there's some kind of debate? One person's right to pollute the air vs everyone else's right to live? Well excuse me! My right to breath comes before your right to pollute.

Tobacco smoke is deadly. If you blow smoke at me, that's assault with a deadly weapon. Period, no exceptions.

References & Facts, other than your precious EPA report.

  • The US Surgeon General estimates that 6,800 Californians alone die each year from Second Hand Smoke [Reference : OEHHA, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.]
  • Babies exposed to second-hand smoke are more likely to die from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome / crib death before they reach the age of one. [Reference]
  • A study conducted by the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 44(6): 503-509, June 2002 concluded that restaurants workers and blue collar workers are still exposed to dangerously high levels of second hand smoke.
Why don't you just go search Google on the topic. Every non-tobacco funded study you'll find that's scientific will invariably conclude that second hand smoke is not only dangerous, but a leading contributer to many of America's leading illnesses.

Also, here's something to think about. The anti-smoking lobby is made up of medical professionals and non-profits such as the American Lung Association. The pro-smoking lobby is purely made up of organizations whose CEOs testified before Congress that smoking is not addictive. Who do you trust?

Actually, the article mentions many studies (3.33 / 3) (#107)
by mingofmongo on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 03:46:19 PM EST

that show little or no risk. It mentions the judge saying that other studies show little or no risk.

Here's a little common sense for you; In order for the non-smoker to breathe exactly the same 'fumes' as the smoker, the smoker would have to exhale directly into the non-smoker's mouth, in a sealed manner like in mouth-to-mouth recesitation. The reality is that the smoke is first filtered through the cigarette's filter, then through the smoker, then mixed with the surrounding air. The non-smoker doesn't get squat. I know, I'm the non-smoker.

"What they don't seem to get is that the key to living the good life is to avoid that brass ring like the fucking plague."
--The Onion
[ Parent ]

Your system of logic (2.33 / 3) (#115)
by bouncing on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 04:19:40 PM EST

By your system of logic, smog is only harmful if you directly breath auto fumes. Cigarette smoke is cigarette smoke is Cigarette smoke is Cigarette smoke is ALWAYS DEADLY.

[ Parent ]
Re: (none / 0) (#151)
by marc987 on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 07:28:51 PM EST

How can you compare cars* on a downtown street with one smoker upwind?

*10 to 100 cars per minute, hundreds to thousands upwind, each car is generating a continous stream of "exhaust" through a 1 1\2 inch pipe.

The smoker seems insignificant health wise, the scary part is that most people choose not to "smell" or react to the cars exhaust.

[ Parent ]

Neither (5.00 / 3) (#125)
by khallow on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 05:28:50 PM EST

Also, here's something to think about. The anti-smoking lobby is made up of medical professionals and non-profits such as the American Lung Association. The pro-smoking lobby is purely made up of organizations whose CEOs testified before Congress that smoking is not addictive. Who do you trust?

While the tobacco industry has lied on numerous demonstratable occasions, we're also seeing lies coming from the other side as the main story shows. Ie, the truth has become another victim in the war on smoking. Further, you seem to forget that these non-profits employ a number of people who as a result have a significant self-interesting in remaining employed. Exaggerating or outright lying about the secondary dangers of smoking helps keep the donations flowing. So to answer your question, I trust neither side in this debate.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

cancer (4.00 / 1) (#143)
by d s oliver h on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 06:50:28 PM EST

It's proven that smoke from cigarettes gives you cancer. No one can argue otherwise.
That's a very strong statement to make. I was under the impression that there was evidence that smoking contributed to the incidence of cancer in a population, or a sample. I was under the impression that the exact medical causes of cancer, and the mechanism by which cancer arises, are not wholly understood. I admit I haven't done any research, but I read the news pretty regularly and all I ever see are stories saying "Scientists think xxx causes cancer" or "new study suggest blah blah blah causes cancer". It was only a few weeks ago headlines were saying that bread causes cancer, or that ALL FOOD causes cancer, as far as I remember. I didn't bother reading these stories because I didn't think it was worth taking them seriously. Cancer is a very emotive topic, and, as far as I know, a not very well understood one. If you can point me to the paper wherein the chemical process leading from smoking directly to any type of cancer is explicated, I will read it with interest.

[ Parent ]
That is not true (none / 0) (#154)
by nusuth on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 07:30:13 PM EST

Your body isn't waiting to be invadede by cancerous cells, it actively fixes its components and if it can't, it just gets rid of them. Sometimes this process fails and you get cancer. There are only a few substances on earth that will give you an instant and assured cancer. Most other carcinogens either increase the risk of cancerous cell production, or reduce body's ability to fight them. This is what is meant by "causing" cancer.

Cigarettes do both, and that has been proven.

Until last few years, there was a very strong statistical link between cancer and smoking but exact mechanisms were not determined. You seem to base your argument on that outdated info. But it doesn't matter anyway, we don't have to know why what goes up must come down to predict if something goes up it will come down. Observations are enough, explanations are bonus stuff.

[ Parent ]

Very Scientific Approach (none / 0) (#159)
by icastel on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 07:38:08 PM EST

But it doesn't matter anyway, we don't have to know why what goes up must come down to predict if something goes up it will come down. Observations are enough, explanations are bonus stuff

That is the most stupid argument you could've made against the previous poster. Thank you very much.




-- I like my land flat --
[ Parent ]
That is <b> the</b> scientific approac (4.00 / 1) (#170)
by nusuth on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 08:10:03 PM EST

Pick the scientific approach:

(1200 AD)

a) I don't know how sun rises and sets every day, but I am pretty sure that it will rise tomorrow too, since it has always did according to our collective data. There might be a chance that it won't, but our data suggests that chance is virtually nil.

b) Granted, sun had risen every morning and set every night according to our data. But that should lead us to a premature conclusion, that sun will rise tomorrow morning too. Since we don't know why the sun sets or rises, we can't say what will happen tomorrow. We just don't have an explanation for the phenomena, and no, I would not call it a fact until it is proven beyond any doubt.

[ Parent ]

link between smoking and cancer (none / 0) (#288)
by tgibbs on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 04:00:00 PM EST

That's a very strong statement to make. I was under the impression that there was evidence that smoking contributed to the incidence of cancer in a population, or a sample. I was under the impression that the exact medical causes of cancer, and the mechanism by which cancer arises, are not wholly understood.
This is a bit like arguing that because gravity is not wholly understood, there is some doubt about whether things fall when dropped. Very little is "wholly understood." But it is hard to find any disease where the causality is known more clearly. The clearest evidence is the correlation between smoking rates and lung cancer. If you compare the two curves over time, you find that lung cancer follows the smoking rate with incredible accuracy after a lag of about 20 years. When smoking is discouraged, the cancer rate drops with a similar lag. So you can't reasonably argue, for example, that people who are prone to cancer like to smoke.

Note by the way, that when you hear reports about cancer risks associated with particular foods, etc., the risks are almost invariably tiny compared to the risk associated with smoking.

[ Parent ]

You're sounding a bit hysterical... (5.00 / 4) (#209)
by sowellfan on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 02:49:38 AM EST

If there are so many studies out there that show this incontrovertible link between SHS and cancer, then why didn't the EPA just use those studies. To read your post, it would seem that the EPA was the bad guy, having ignored the studies that showed the link between SHS and cancer, and instead using studies funded by big tobacco.

The Surgeon Generals estimate (your first reference), taken from the OEHHA report, is based in part upon the EPA report that this article discusses and debunks (and which you even derided as 'your precious EPA report'). Unfortunately, I didn't have time to read the entire report, it's very large (the RR's that I noticed in the section regarding cancer and ETS were almost all below 1.5, and the one I noticed that was at 2.0 actually involved people getting non-smoking related cancers, which could indicate a small sample, bad methodology, or both.)

Regarding SIDS, or crib death, the anti-smoking crowd has another weak argument. Remember, correlation is not causation. The best current theory on SIDS is that babies, when placed on their stomachs to sleep, essentially create a small pocket of stale air that they rebreath, eventually asphyxiating themselves (obviously this is rather uncommon or we would've figured it out sooner). The "Back to Sleep" campaign is trying to get people to put their babies on their backs for sleeping, therefore eliminating the risk of the air pocket forming. See link below.

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/sids/

The correlation between SHS and SIDS deaths is likely a function of behavior. I think we can all agree that smoking is more prevalent in poorer economic circles than others (especially in America). SIDS deaths are also more common in the same groups. Likely the smoking is just an additional correlating trait, rather than a cause.

Your third reference only demonstrates that restaurant and blue collar workers are, in fact, exposed to second hand smoke. I think we all knew that already. The big question of the day is, "Having demonstrated that these folks have been exposed to second hand smoke, do we have any significant studies that show an increased risk with a RR above 2.0? 1.75? 1.5 even?"

You ask about "every other credible study ever conducted that wasn't funded by big tobacco". Okay then, how about a study funded by the World Health Organization. It seems to have been a well done study, with a large sample group and controls. It came up with a spousal RR of 1.16, workplace RR of 1.17 (and another at 1.0, combined spouse & workplace exposure RR of 1.14, and a childhood exposure RR of 0.78. All those numbers look pretty familiar, don't they? (At least, until the 0.78). Unfortunately, the WHO then pretty much decided to bury the report, and when that was reported, the WHO pretty much went down the same road as the EPA (saying that an RR of 1.16 essentially proved a significant link). Go to these sites for information on that WHO report.

Info on the WHO report, EPA report, etc.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html

Abstract of the WHO study
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9776409&dopt=Abstract

The WHO press release wherein they seem to contradict themselves
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html

In closing, I am not a smoker, but I value truth above all things. If I ask a restauranteur to disallow smoking or build a separate ventilation zone for smoking, it'll be because he's apt to lose my business if he doesn't, not because of some half-baked notion that I might get cancer from the guy 30 feet away with a cigarette.

My wife has asthma and is *extremely* sensitive to SHS. She has said, in some of her more emotional moments, that "All smokers deserve to die". When she walks into work, she takes a few Kleenex to put over her nose and mouth when she walks the gauntlet of smokers at the entrance of her building. When we're walking into a store/restaurant/whatever, I have to constantly watch out for smokers lest she have an asthma attack. The attacks are definitely real, but stress can also cause them, so I often wonder if she hasn't just worked herself up over tobacco smoke so much that the mere smell of someone 50 yards away puffing can cause some sort of physiological response (the subconscious can do many things, and her subconscious evidently has no problem with my barbecuing on a charcoal grill twice a week...strange). All of this being said, I am still against smoking bans in restaurants. If there are enough people like my wife and I out there, who have a problem with SHS, the market will find a way (and has already, in some cases). Case in point, Carnival Cruise Lines has a completely non-smoking ship.

[ Parent ]

Sorry, but no. (none / 0) (#231)
by kvan on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 06:08:05 AM EST

What you're contending is that if you breath smoke, exhale, and someone else breathes the exact same fumes, this is somehow not harmful.
No, what he is contending is that the EPA study was deeply flawed, and that the collected body of evidence has yet to show a significant RR from SHS.

Anyhow, SHS is in no way the exact same fumes as the smoker is breathing. The concentration is vastly smaller when the smoke has been filtered through smoker lungs and spread in the air. That's why there's nothing worse than smokers who forget their cigarette and let it burn itself: the smoke doesn't get filtered before mingling with the air.

SHS is annoyance, yes, but it will not kill you. If it bothers you, you can simply avoid it. If it bothers you at a bar or restaurant, let the proprietor know that he won't be having your business until he establishes a smoke free section. Hell, let the smokers know that it bothers you; you might be surprised. I've found that many of them aren't as bad as you'd think and, in spite of their nasty habit, will be happy to accomodate you. Reason will get you a lot farther than shrill ranting.


"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, most do." - Bertrand Russell


[ Parent ]
theres still too much smoke everywhere (3.76 / 13) (#110)
by zzzeek on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 03:56:59 PM EST

I live in NYC, and despite all that the rules that have been created with regards to second hand smoke, continuously I am still subjected to second hand smoke.  Whether or not its actively harmful to me, I'd rather not be inhaling it, I'd rather not have the unpleasant sensation of choking on smoke, I'd rather not have my clothes and skin be completely embedded with the smell of cigarettes.  

I get smoke blasted in my face all the time from the person in front of me on the sidewalk lighting up.  Suffice to say many of these people are not the types whom I'd like to confront about it, either.  To go out to any kind of bar or club in New York means you will definitely need to change clothes and shower afterwards, if you dont want to smell like a dirty ashtray.  There is an allergy effect as well; after a night out in NYC, I go home and generally will be blowing black soot out of my nose until the next day.

Contrast this to my visit to San Francisco, where I was able to go to any number of bars and clubs, and afterwards, no smoky odor, as nobody is allowed to smoke in bars or clubs (at least at that time they weren't, it was 4 years ago).

Cigarette smoke has a direct effect on those who are exposed to it, whether or not it can be related directly to cancer (well it IS a substance full of carcinogens....common sense....), it has an offensive odor and to me is a direct invasion of my personal space and comfort.  

If smokers could respect this and choose not to invade my space all the time, we wouldnt need all those nasty rules and taxes.  But they continue to be the most inconsiderate bunch out there, so they will not have my sympathy.

I fundamentally Disagree.... (3.66 / 3) (#117)
by wiremind on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 04:32:12 PM EST

When I first ready this I thought it was written in sarcasm, but as I continued on I got the feeling that it was written in full seriousness.

Your entire post slightly disturbed me. First of all you say you were offended when in a public location someone lit up a cigarette. Do you value your sence of smell that much more than your sence of sound? Because in my opinion cigarette smoke is no worse than hearing a man swear. and when you are in a public location that is also one of the things you can expect to hear.

You also claim to go to a club then be bothered by the smoke!, you CHOSE TO GO THE THE CLUB. dont like it dont go to the club.

...to me is a direct invasion of my personal space and comfort.
If smokers could respect this and choose not to invade my space all the time, we wouldnt need all those nasty rules and taxes. But they continue to be the most inconsiderate bunch out there, so they will not have my sympathy.

By your sence of what your rights' should be, they should also make laws against Swearing. Oh, and what about people who have opinions that are in violation of how I feel? Should we just outlaw all those people to? Don't wanna offend anyone!

Heck, lets just outlaw OPINIONS that way no one will ever be offended......

ya..

...when you leave your house in the morning, do you wear earplugs to avoid hearing swear words? or do you understand that when you leave your house their will be things that Offend you ?

Kyle L.
"I may not like your opinion, but I will Die Fighting for your right to say it." ~ me & many others
Kyle
[ Parent ]
youre right (1.00 / 2) (#120)
by zzzeek on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 04:47:33 PM EST

Your entire post slightly disturbed me. First of all you say you were offended when in a public location someone lit up a cigarette. Do you value your sence of smell that much more than your sence of sound? Because in my opinion cigarette smoke is no worse than hearing a man swear. and when you are in a public location that is also one of the things you can expect to hear.

I never thought of this;  from now on, I can walk up to any smoker and sock them hard right in the mouth.  Since, do they value their sense of pain more than my sense of smell ?

[ Parent ]

How far to go? (none / 0) (#122)
by wiremind on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 05:08:07 PM EST

Well... YAY, I get a discussion out of this one. hehe :)
First, sorry if I offended in any way. I kinda got into <.rant>rant<./rant> mode.
What I was acutally trying to say is that we should consider how far out personal feelings should extend outward. (note: i quit smoking 1 year ago, i have grown to hate the smell myself).
On one hand: you are discomforted because you have to smell the smoke.
On the other hand: The smoker, if he does not get that cigarette, he will feel discomform. (It is a chemical dependancy).

My stand on smoking and clubs does not change. But if you are out in public at say a public park, I think the smoker should have the respect for people around him/her to go to a location where smoking is more acceptable. If not, maybe a friendly fist to the cheek is just what he needs . :-P

Kyle L.
Kyle
[ Parent ]
however... (2.00 / 1) (#180)
by puppet10 on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 09:03:27 PM EST

On the other hand: The smoker, if he does not get that cigarette, he will feel discomform. (It is a chemical dependancy).

Is totally due to his own choices.

On one hand: you are discomforted because you have to smell the smoke.

Is due to someone else's choices.

[ Parent ]
And again. (none / 0) (#444)
by tekue on Wed Jul 31, 2002 at 08:48:52 AM EST

You choose to go to certain clubs, where, as you already know, people smoke cigarettes. It's your choice.

Manufacturers chose to include many physicaly-addictive substances in the cigarettes they produce.

Most probably, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Be tolerant and people will tolerate you. For some people a sight of two males holding hands when walking down the street is downright offensive, so probably we should ban homosexuality, right?
--
Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been playful, rebellious, and immature. --Tom Robbins
[ Parent ]

And you'll end up... (none / 0) (#223)
by Caton on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 04:53:32 AM EST

...with a cigarette butt sticking from your eye.

You'd be better off asking politely. Most smokers will move away or stop if asked.

Hint: don't bother 'em with "you're giving me cancer". A simple "Could you please stop smoking because it is bothering me" will get better results.

If that doesn't work, then don't be stupid... punching someone in the mouth is dangerous -- teeth are hard. You will hurt yourself, possibly break your hand. Choose a nice, soft, teeth-free place to kick 'em.

---
As long as there's hope...
[ Parent ]

Re: smoking in public (5.00 / 1) (#193)
by guito on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 11:20:41 PM EST

I'd just like to inform you that there _are_ actually smokers out there who do respect other people and try to do a lot to prevent you from having to deal with them. eg: when I'm lighting up I make sure that there is no one around who is bothered by it when indoors and make an effort to be away from anyone when outdoors. I don't throw cigarette butts on the sidewalk/streets. If I'm smoking outside and someone is walking past me I will move out of the way (as far as I can) and blow away from people. Little things like that. We're not all inconsiderate. :)

[ Parent ]
Sense of proportion (none / 0) (#228)
by kvan on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 05:45:54 AM EST

I get smoke blasted in my face all the time from the person in front of me on the sidewalk lighting up.
This is on the sidewalk in NYC, with several internal combustion vehicles passing by per minute, yes? Methinks a mouthful of second hand smoke is the least of your worries.

"Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, most do." - Bertrand Russell


[ Parent ]
Or, as Bill Hicks said... (none / 0) (#445)
by tekue on Wed Jul 31, 2002 at 08:52:37 AM EST

-Your cigarette smoke will give me cancer!
-Well, I'm sorry, let me just put out my cigarette on this rotting corpse in the trash bin.

Or something along those lines.
--
Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been playful, rebellious, and immature. --Tom Robbins
[ Parent ]

Oh, bitch bitch bitch. (3.96 / 33) (#118)
by kitten on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 04:34:30 PM EST

I'm seeing some of the most asinine comments laced with the most moronic of rhetoric in the comments, and quite frankly, I'm disgusted.

A number of you have used the word "assault", as in, smokers are "assaulting" you with their smoke. This is the height of reactionary nonsense.

Yes, secondhand smoke is bad. No, you should not be forced to have your health compromised by my choice to smoke. I, a smoker, will be the first to acknowledge both of these statements.

But can we please be a little realistic about the situation? The medical reports on the detrimental effects of secondhand smoke are entirely accurate, but they are also - almost without exception - focused on those nonsmokers that either:
  • live with a smoker
  • spend large amounts of time (hours per day on a regular basis) in a smoky environment (such as a bartender)

    If you do not fall into one of these categories, I don't want to hear your panic-stricken cries of "health concerns". So yes, while the studies are accurate, they also sensationalize the issue by making it seem as though the slightest amount of secondhand smoke is as good as signing your death warrant. Cigarette smoke is not like the bubonic plague, okay? Being exposed to a little bit of it is not going to send you to an early grave. You people are acting like you're made out of sodium and we're spraying water on you.

    If everyone could stop pretending like the sky is falling for a moment, we would be left with only one argument: Nonsmokers, by and large, do not like the smell of cigarette smoke, and for whatever other reason, it bothers them.

    This is a perfectly valid and legitimate argument and as a smoker, I respect it. For this reason I don't cry over my segregation at restaurants, or get into a self-righteous seizure when I patronize an establishment that prohibits smoking (much as I'd love to be able to light up in a movie theatre, I don't, and I don't whine about it either.) I understand that many people find my cigarette smoke obnoxious, and I'm okay with that, so I more or less keep it to myself.

    However, "keep it to myself" does not mean "only in my own home". If I'm standing outside, and you happen to walk by, or even stand near me, the minor amount of smoke you're going to inhale is going to have such an insignificant effect on you as to not be worth mentioning. Quite frankly I'm tired of reading indignant bleatings from some of you about how "nobody should be allowed to smoke within 50 feet of me" and "your right to smoke ends where my right to breathe air begins". If you're that much of a basket case over the quality of the air you're breathing, I strongly urge you to move out of the city and wear a gas mask at all times, making sure to change the filters hourly. You're breathing in all kinds of toxic crap every minute of your life anyway, just by virtue of living in an industrialized society.

    So I ask you all to stick to the only real argument you have: You don't like cigarette smoke. Spare me the hue and cry of lung cancer and throat cancer and all the other medical issues you imagine you're getting because, oh horror, you breathed in three milligrams of nicotine this week oh god you're going to die.

    With very few exceptions such as those with asthma, secondhand smoke is, at most, an annoyance or inconvenience. It is not going to kill you. I am tired of hearing the Ptolmey-style rantings of those who think they sit at the center of the universe while everything else rotates around them.

    Meanwhile, those of you who are griping that you don't like the smell of smoke: Too bad. I don't like rap and country music, okay? Why don't I just lobby Congress nonstop so that when I'm sitting in my car I don't ever have to hear the guy next to me listening to Master P or Garth Brooks? He's invading my privacy and my personal space with his hideous and offensive auditory assault! Help help, I'm being repressed!

    mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
  • That was succulent. (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by evilpenguin on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 05:45:00 PM EST

    And, for the record, I am not a smoker.
    --
    # nohup cat /dev/dsp > /dev/hda & killall -9 getty
    [ Parent ]
    Thank you. -NT (3.00 / 2) (#139)
    by CaptainSuperBoy on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 06:05:14 PM EST



    --
    jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
    [ Parent ]
    Take your selfish&self-centred attitude elsewh (2.00 / 2) (#144)
    by DodgyGeezer on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 06:50:41 PM EST

    Meanwhile, those of you who are griping that you don't like the smell of smoke: Too bad. I don't like rap and country music, okay? Why don't I just lobby Congress nonstop so that when I'm sitting in my car I don't ever have to hear the guy next to me listening to Master P or Garth Brooks? He's invading my privacy and my personal space with his hideous and offensive auditory assault! Help help, I'm being repressed!
    If my neighbour disturbs me with their music, I can call the police. I'm not sure if that's just a local by-law though. Technically, I could do the same for a car, although it's more effort for the police and quite low on their list of priorities. Personally, I think smoking is filthy and revolting habit and I would rather not have to put up with. I can tell you, I feel 10x shittier the next day after sitting drinking in a smokey bar all night compared with doing the same in a non-smokey one. My wife is a smoker and she insists on taking a shower whenever we come back from the pub... that doesn't help *my* sore throat though.

    [ Parent ]
    If Your Neighbour Disturbs You With His Smoking .. (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by icastel on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 07:29:19 PM EST

    Call the police. I really doubt it, though, that your cigarette smoke coming from the house next to yours is really that annoying. As for the smoky bar you stay at all night, for fucks sake, don't go there any more! Your sore throat is probably from all the whining you do about SHS.


    -- I like my land flat --
    [ Parent ]
    Thank you (none / 0) (#428)
    by spiralx on Tue Jul 30, 2002 at 06:12:55 PM EST

    Best comment ever. And my new .sig :)

    You're doomed, I'm doomed, we're all doomed for ice cream. - Bob Aboey
    [ Parent ]

    I'm flattered. Thank You. (none / 0) (#477)
    by icastel on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 04:52:35 PM EST




    -- I like my land flat --
    [ Parent ]
    that was a beautiful insightful rant. Thanx! n/t (none / 0) (#147)
    by dieMSdie on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 06:55:33 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    From a Smoker (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by icastel on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 07:30:48 PM EST

    Well said. I pretty much adhere to the same rules you've set for yourself.


    -- I like my land flat --
    [ Parent ]
    Re: Oh, b---- b---- b----. (5.00 / 3) (#199)
    by jazman_777 on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 12:51:40 AM EST

    If everyone could stop pretending like the sky is falling for a moment...

    We're dealing with a lot of Americans here. You can fuggedaboutit--our life goal is a risk-free environment.

    [ Parent ]

    sodium man (none / 0) (#374)
    by Shren on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 09:59:10 AM EST


    sodium man, sodium man,
    sodium man meets aqueous man
    they have a fight, sodium explodes
    sodium man

    [ Parent ]
    Well said (and I'm a non-smoker). [N/T] (none / 0) (#446)
    by tekue on Wed Jul 31, 2002 at 08:55:39 AM EST


    --
    Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been playful, rebellious, and immature. --Tom Robbins
    [ Parent ]
    Common Sense Says... (4.42 / 19) (#119)
    by Run4YourLives on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 04:46:13 PM EST

    Ok, I live in Vancouver. I used to live in Toronto. I don't smoke. Vancouver has laws regarding smoking in restaurants/bars/clubs. Toronto does not.

    After frequenting a bar/club in Toronto, I would often come home with clothes stinking of smoke, eyes painfully stinging and throat dry and sore.
    That doesn't happen in the "smoke free" bars/clubs in Vancouver.

    Now, I'm not a scientist, and I've not conducted any million dollar taxpayer funded studies, but I think that my body is a little better off in a "smoke free" bar than in a "smoke filled bar".

    Granted, a bar is not the same as me walking past you on the street while you're smoking, but don't tell me that because study A says Second Hand Smoke does not produce higher cancer rates more than 50% of the time in subjects, smoking is healthy or not harmful to me.

    The simple truth is that some, possibly most smokers have a hard time accepting that their habit DOES affect other people in a negative way, the same way that me walking down a busy sidewalk flailing my arms wildly about is going to affect someone in a negative way. That's the issue. Getting caught up in studies like these (both for and against) doesn't change that simple fact.

    It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown

    I hear you. (3.50 / 6) (#124)
    by Inoshiro on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 05:16:49 PM EST

    Where I'm currently working, there is a rather strong smoker section. When I go into that area, my throat dries out, I can't breath, I develop a headache, and my lungs feel "dirty." I usually end up holding my breath, then coughing a lot when I'm away from the area and breathing again. It's horrible.



    --
    [ イノシロ ]
    [ Parent ]
    Re: I hear you (3.00 / 2) (#190)
    by guito on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 11:13:31 PM EST

    FYI - Toronto now does have strict laws regarding smoking in restaurants/bars/clubs. It's prohibited. Just something I learned on a trip there (I smoke but it didn't bother me one bit. Same with visiting Waterloo, which has similar laws).

    [ Parent ]
    Eh (none / 0) (#249)
    by A Trickster Imp on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 08:25:46 AM EST

    Kanada, Kalifornia, it's all the same state oppression, eh comrade?

    [ Parent ]
    Smoking.. (4.11 / 9) (#123)
    by AnalogBoy on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 05:13:00 PM EST

    Second hand smoke isn't as big an issue for me as having to smell the stuff.   Its offensive to walk into a restaurant and smell tobacoo smoke over the food, or at work, or in a public outdoor venue with a high people-density.  Most workplaces are smoke-free now, but restaurants still get me.. Having to wait 20 minutes because 1/2 the restaurant is dedicated to smokers irritates me to no end.   Having a no-smoking section in a restaurant is akin to having a no-peeing section in a pool, but it is still worse in the fasttrack-to-lung-cancer section.

    A friend & I were discussing ideas on how to appease both smokers & non-smokers, and we came up with a section of the restaurant, seperated by an airlock & shower.   When one exits, the air must be exchanged and the person showered with frebreeze.    I like the idea.  (Closed captioned for the humor impared). Oh, and the section wouldn't have any air circulation. :)
    --
    Save the environment, plant a Bush back in Texas.
    Religous Tolerance (And click a banner while you're there)

    On Smoking Laws (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by J'raxis on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 05:36:50 PM EST

    So.... we should have laws that prevent people to smoke in public because You Don’t Like It. Not because its dangerous, but simply because it upsets you. Gotcha.

    — The Raxis

    [ J’raxis·Com | Liberty in your lifetime ]
    [ Parent ]

    Actually, yeah. (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by AnalogBoy on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 10:55:08 PM EST

    I think every once in a while the world should throw me a freakin bone.

    Either this or allow me to beat senseless anyone who pisses me off.

    Either one would make me happy.

    :)

    Should i be back on my lithium now, doc?

    --
    Save the environment, plant a Bush back in Texas.
    Religous Tolerance (And click a banner while you're there)
    [ Parent ]

    Y'know... (none / 0) (#207)
    by Irobot on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 01:51:25 AM EST

    I have a "friend" I'd like you to "meet." I know I certainly wouldn't mind if you made yourself "happy" by beating him senseless. Just trying to make your world a little better...

    BTW - your doctor called and said, "Yes."

    :)

    Irobot

    The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
    [ Parent ]

    Don't Go To That Restaurant. Easy. (2.00 / 2) (#150)
    by icastel on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 07:22:10 PM EST




    -- I like my land flat --
    [ Parent ]
    Not everywhere (3.00 / 1) (#186)
    by barnasan on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 10:29:54 PM EST


    for instance in some cities in Europe, you would have a hard time to find a no smoking! restaurant.

    [ Parent ]
    Europe smoking habits (none / 0) (#212)
    by sowellfan on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 03:00:09 AM EST

    Whatever happened to, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."?

    [ Parent ]
    Don't know (?!) (none / 0) (#222)
    by barnasan on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 04:39:28 AM EST


    Why don't you tell me...?

    [ Parent ]
    You mean don't go to ANY restaurant (none / 0) (#208)
    by Josh A on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 02:16:56 AM EST

    At least, in northern California where I'm from, there weren't any non-smoking restaurants that I know of.

    I hesitate to say "not any", because there could have be one, but one restaurant in half a state is not very useful.

    ---
    Thank God for Canada, if only because they annoy the Republicans so much. – Blarney


    [ Parent ]
    Then open one! (none / 0) (#248)
    by A Trickster Imp on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 08:23:51 AM EST

    Then open one!  Clearly there's a market for one.

    I remember a family type restaraunt (you know, the kind that have spaghetti and meatballs, veal parmigian, and breaded cod, all off the same food service vendor) that called itself "No Smoking".

    Sadly, it died a premature death due to not smoking.

    [ Parent ]

    Are you sure? (none / 0) (#266)
    by Dephex Twin on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 11:53:52 AM EST

    From the sound of it, the menu wasn't too impressive.

    What makes you think it was the non-smoking policy that caused the restaurant to fold, and not sub-par food?


    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
    [ Parent ]

    umm when was this (none / 0) (#299)
    by slackhaus on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 05:00:41 PM EST

    you know that California passed a law that banned smoking in all b ars and restaurants, don't you.

    [ Parent ]
    Before the law, obviously (none / 0) (#452)
    by Josh A on Wed Jul 31, 2002 at 12:35:20 PM EST

    That's why I spoke in past tense. I grew up there :)

    ---
    Thank God for Canada, if only because they annoy the Republicans so much. – Blarney


    [ Parent ]
    only two questions have to be answered. (3.83 / 6) (#127)
    by zenofchai on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 05:30:08 PM EST

    question 1: does SHS contain any, even trace, amounts of carcinogens. this is a very, very easy question, it is YES.

    question 2: is your right to smoke more valuable to society than my right to not breathe those trace amounts of carcinogens? this is a very, very hard question.

    you can't outlaw cigarettes in public due to their smell; you'd have to also outlaw people who don't bathe, people who wear strong perfume, people who work on farms, etc, etc, until we are all walking around naked, covered in baking powder to absorb any odor which might come off of us.

    so back to question 2: is your right to smoke more valuable to society than my right to not breathe those trace amounts of carcinogens? so would it also be my right to call for a law to stop all combustion engines from driving on public roads? call it a slippery slope, call it a fine line, but i certainly don't have an answer to that question.

    the amount of carcinogens doesn't really matter, in my opinion. if there are any, then you move on to question 2. everyone lung's are more or less sensitive than someone else's, and what might not even be noticed by you could cause someone else to break into a coughing fit. what standard should you use?
    --
    as gold which he cannot spend will make no man rich, so knowledge which he cannot apply will make no man wise.

    The problem (4.00 / 1) (#138)
    by CaptainSuperBoy on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 06:01:20 PM EST

    The problem is that you are basing your comparison on value to society, a quantity that is impossible to define. My opinion on what is valuable to society is different than yours, or a scientist's, a philosopher's, or a priest's. If you end up at a situation where you are asking, "What is more valuable to society?," you made a wrong turn somewhere in your reasoning.

    Everyone has their own version of what rules and limitations should be imposed upon other members of society. The proper question is, "What solution will infringe on the least amount of personal freedoms?"

    --
    jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
    [ Parent ]

    apparently i misspoke (none / 0) (#351)
    by zenofchai on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 11:51:59 AM EST

    "What solution will infringe on the least amount of personal freedoms?"

    perhaps instead of asking "what is more valuable to society" i should have asked "what is more valuable to a freedom-loving society".
    --
    --
    The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph
    [ Parent ]

    Carcinogens (4.66 / 3) (#162)
    by godix on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 07:47:06 PM EST

    Part of the problem is that damned near everything contains some carcinogens. Instead of asking if SHS has any carcinogens a better question to ask would be 'are there more than Equal, Olestra, or other food preservatives we eat daily?' I don't know the answer, but it would be more relevent to what's already been decided as acceptable risks in society.

    [ Parent ]
    faulty argument... (none / 0) (#350)
    by zenofchai on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 11:50:02 AM EST

    'are there more than Equal, Olestra, or other food preservatives we eat daily?'

    but we can choose not to buy or consume those ingredients. sitting next to someone at the bus stop, you can't choose to not breathe for the next five minutes until the bus comes...
    --
    --
    The K5 Interactive Political Compass SVG Graph
    [ Parent ]

    still faulty argument (none / 0) (#394)
    by MisterX on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 03:47:03 PM EST

    sitting next to someone at the bus stop, you can't choose to not breathe for the next five minutes until the bus comes

    Can't you move?

    [ Parent ]

    can't you move? (none / 0) (#397)
    by zenofchai on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 04:17:43 PM EST

    not if i want to be able to sit while i wait for the bus... why should i have to stand up so someone else can smoke? the best solution is for this someone else to smoke in his own home and leave the cigarettes there when he comes to the bus stop.
    --
    as gold which he cannot spend will make no man rich, so knowledge which he cannot apply will make no man wise.
    [ Parent ]
    No cancer. (none / 0) (#447)
    by tekue on Wed Jul 31, 2002 at 09:05:31 AM EST

    Sitting on a bus stop next to someone smoking a cigarette will not give you cancer. If you live with a smoker (who smokes in the house), or you work with a smoker (who smokes in the workplace), you have at most 19% bigger chance of getting cancer (from the chance you already have living in a modern society) that if you didn't, according to a very biased, badly conducted study by an organisation which already said that SHS gives you cancer.

    To reiterate: Sitting on a bus stop next to someone smoking a cigarette will not give you cancer. Period.
    --
    Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been playful, rebellious, and immature. --Tom Robbins
    [ Parent ]

    Smoking bad, Mmm'k. (3.42 / 7) (#130)
    by FatHed on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 05:41:00 PM EST

    Smoking is bad for the person smoking, it is potentially bad for a non-smoker.

    But who cares?

    The larger problem is the lose of freedom because anything you do, will infringe on somebody else's rights. Property rights are under attack for the same reason. You can't really do what you want with your land.

    As far as public places, what are those? Are they restaurants? No, that is a private business. Public land would be National Parks and such. How you do business should be up to you, if you want to allow smoking, then ok, non-smokers go some where else, if you don't allow smoking, the smokers go somewhere else. These current laws in Cali, and Mesa/Tempe AZ are annoying if nothing else. All of the bar owners in Tempe would love the law to get removed, after all, it is capitalism, people smoke when they drink.
    McDonalds has this same problem as well. Who tells you to eat at Mickey Dees? They do, because they want to make money, no other reason. The more you eat there, the better.
    Example;
    Wake up, go outside, yell "Good Morning", no laws broken right. Now, your sleep schedule may vary from everyone's, say you work a graveyard shift, so you woke up at 11pm, now, that same yell of "Good Morning", is potentially disturbing the peace. Of course, it could also be disturbing the peace in the morning, but somebody has to call the police. If you work the graveyard, and sleep all day, you are not allowed to complain about the day walkers, if you try, I think most cops would blow you off.

    I would say people need responsibility, but they would probably think that they are being responsible, in that they are showing us how dangerous doing certain things can be, and so you shouldn't do it. Like putting you hand on a stove that has been on a while, but at least we haven't tried to sue the stove company for not heat-shielding the burners, and made a law requiring a 16-ft bullet proof wall around the stove, in case it blows up.

    I did put my hand a stove before, when I was a kid. I'll never make that mistake again. It's a good thing that I'll let you take the responsibility to learn that on your own.

    America is striving for perfection, and we are losing are freedom on the way.

    Intelligence is a matter of opinion.
    When your freedom... (2.18 / 11) (#133)
    by Silent Chris on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 05:53:18 PM EST

    ...stops killing me, we can talk.

    [ Parent ]
    Can you read? (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by godix on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 07:39:36 PM EST

    The entire point of the article was that smokers freedoms probably aren't killing you. Did you bother to read the article or did you just scroll down to comments so you could throw your opinion around?

    [ Parent ]
    I read the story (1.00 / 3) (#175)
    by Silent Chris on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 08:29:05 PM EST

    One K5 reader dismisses one paper.  Very interesting.

    That doesn't outdo the thousands of other papers from government and university researchers that argue differently.  If you'd like to argue against all those, be my guest.

    [ Parent ]

    Are you sure? (4.00 / 4) (#177)
    by godix on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 08:41:56 PM EST

    "One K5 reader dismisses one paper."

    Ok, so you didn't read the article. A court threw out findings from the EPA. Let me repeat this since you apperently missed it the multiple times it was mentioned in the article: THE COURTS DISMISSED THE POSITION OF THE ENVIROMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. Got it yet? No? Lets try explaining this another way. The justice system (the system this country relies on to be fair and impartial) dismissed (threw out, said it was worthless, discarded) the major finding of fact (the thing that says SHS is bad) from the Enviromental Protection Agency (the highest government group concerned with things like SHS).
    That's a lot different that one k5 reader dismissing one paper. Do you finally understand what this article was about? The COURTS said the EPA's report was crap. A K5 user reported that. The K5 user is not the one who dismissed the paper, it was the COURTS.

    "That doesn't outdo the thousands of other papers from government and university researchers that argue differently."

    Thanks for the great links to those thousands of other papers. It really helped establish that you were basing your comment on scientific evidence instead of just making stuff up. Oh, wait, you didn't provide links. Nevermind.

    [ Parent ]

    More importantly (4.50 / 2) (#182)
    by R343L on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 09:52:46 PM EST

    This paper was a metastudy. That means it was supposed to use as many studies as possible for a particular area together to see if there is any consistency or are new findings. Throwing out a particular study (i.e. data source) when doing a metastudy is only supposed to be done in extreme circumstances (the study's methods are extremely flawed...and usually not even then). Metastudies are often considered to be stronger results because they take into account disparate methods, data, etc. Thus, hopefully, a metastudy should be evening out as much bias as possible. Obviously throwing out data and using lower standards of significance don't help that goal.

    Another important thing to consider is that a metastudy should use as many extant studies that are studying the same thing. So it's not really thousands of "yes SHS is really bad" versus just this one study. This study was supposed to be taking into account many other studies. It obviously didn't. In any case, I don't think there have been thousands of SHS studies. Very few areas of science are studied that thoroughly. In my mind, that is a great detriment to a major requirement of a scientific finding--reproducibility.

    Rachael
    "Like cheese spread over too much cantelope, the people I spoke with liked their shoes." Ctrl-Alt-Del
    [ Parent ]

    Medicare (3.12 / 8) (#134)
    by Weakon on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 05:54:31 PM EST

    Yay! There goes all my medicare money. Taking care of people who decided to smoke and now need an operation so they can continue to breathe. Remember, smoking takes years off the end of your life, the part that sucks anyway.

    Actually... (4.33 / 3) (#158)
    by curunir on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 07:36:44 PM EST

    I'm normally pretty anti-tobacco, but I don't think smokers end up costing our medical system any more than non-smokers. It would appear that way on the face of things, but since their lives are cut short we avoid expenses such as nursing home fees and medical costs for the ailment that would have eventually killed them had they not died prematurely from smoking.

    [ Parent ]
    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#189)
    by Graymalkin on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 11:02:19 PM EST

    At the end of their shortened life the smoker accrues a shitload of medical bills from treatments and possibly operations to repair the damage they did while they smoked. I wouldn't guess they are much cheaper than non-smokers to support towards the end of their lives. Figure one year of intense medical treatment versus five years of nursing care. I'd be truly suprised if nursing care was THAT much more expensive for us taxpayers than medical treatment.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, smokers may cost Medicare less (none / 0) (#214)
    by sowellfan on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 03:24:37 AM EST

    It turns out that this has been looked at a few times, with mixed answers (see link below).

    http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=407&sequence=7

    Some studies showed the lifetime medical costs of smokers to be slightly higher. The Medicare-covered portion of life, though, is just a small portion of a whole life, and if you're a bit more sickly during life, and get destroyed by cancer relatively quickly, you could have higher lifetime costs and still have lower Medicare costs. Nursing homes and such are very expensive, which would tend to make non-smokers more expensive. Also, it seems to me that it's probably cheaper to treat a smoker who gets massive lung cancer and then dies a year later than to deal with a non-smoker with continuing health problems (including other forms of cancer, maybe not as lethal but every bit as expensive) who lives to be 75 or 80.

    In any case, any added expenses are more than made up for in the taxes smokers pay.

    [ Parent ]

    medicare (1.00 / 1) (#205)
    by godix on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 01:44:41 AM EST

    If cigarettes are as dangerous as claimed, how many smokers get to the point where medicare is avalable? If you can get cancer and die by walking past a smoker, I would imagine most smokers die after paying into medicare and social security but don't like long enough to get anything out of it. See, smoking is actually a plus for government retirement programs.

    [ Parent ]
    And? (4.80 / 21) (#140)
    by jayhawk88 on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 06:30:41 PM EST

    I'm sorry, but to me it comes down to something very simple:

    1. You want to smoke in a public place.
    2. I don't want you to smoke in a public place.

    One of us is going to win, simple as that. You can throw all the studies, stats, or whatever out the window. For the vast majority of us, it's about not wanting to smell, breathe, or taste smoke in our restraunts, apartments, or places of business. Quite honestly, I wouldn't care if doctors would say it was good for me: cigarette smoke is foul and disgusting to me.

    As I said in your previous article on the topic, it's diametrically opposed views that pretty much has to come down to majority rules.

    Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web? -- John Ashcroft
    Please, grow up. (2.71 / 7) (#148)
    by steveftoth on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 07:16:08 PM EST

    Unless you think that smoking should be illegal, then I think that you should grow up. People should be allowed to do whatever they want to as long as it doesn't invade on other's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. Smoking is a minor annoyance in this scheme of things. That's the point of the article, that they are lieing to you when they say that your life going to be signifigantly shorter due to Second hand smoke. The evidence that proves this was thrown out. Saying it's some great travesty that you have to endure other's smoking is making a mountain out of an molehill plain and simple.

    It's not like these people are going out of their way to make your life a living hell. The only smokers that are assholes about smoking are the people who would be assholes anyway, and you can't stop the assholes.

    If you don't want to be a part of society then please, you are free to leave.

    [ Parent ]

    Think about what you just said! (4.00 / 6) (#174)
    by crispee on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 08:27:57 PM EST

    Unless you think that smoking should be illegal, then I think that you should grow up. People should be allowed to do whatever they want to as long as it doesn't invade on other's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.
    The poster said that cigarette smoke makes him unhappy. When cigarette smokers invent a way to smoke which emits no smoke into the shared air that we must all breathe then there will be no objection to them doing it anywhere they like.

    Regardless, you are too stupid to be a libertarian. Go try your hand as a democrat.
    Do you know what's better?
    [ Parent ]
    Pursuit (4.40 / 5) (#194)
    by pexatus on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 11:26:23 PM EST

    The key word is "pursuit" (now that we've all decided to take the US Declaration of Independence as an all-seeing legal and moral guide). You have the right to pursue happiness; you do not have the right to happiness. If I smoke around you, you can pursue happiness by leaving, or by asking me to stop, or by throwing water in my face. You are not guaranteed the right to happiness at any cost; it is not my responsibility to ensure your happiness.

    Now, if SHS causes lung cancer more than the original author claims, then my smoking around you infringes on your right to life, and you have room for complaint. But if it merely makes you unhappy, then you're SOL.

    [ Parent ]

    pursuit (2.50 / 2) (#340)
    by lonemarauder on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 04:08:57 AM EST

    I can't eat at about 50% of the resturaunts in my town, can't go to any amusement park, musical concert, or outdoor festival of any kind because of smokers. I can't even go swimming without gulping a lungful of marlboro when I come up for air.

    Smoking goes WAY beyond infringing my right to happiness. I literally have to plan my life around avoiding humans in outdoor situations because of it.



    [ Parent ]
    Extreme allergies. (none / 0) (#448)
    by tekue on Wed Jul 31, 2002 at 09:24:05 AM EST

    It's not my fault you've got an extreme version of nicotine allergy. To cheer you up, people who are extremaly allergic to cats have even worse problems — at least you can see from a distance if someone is smoking, while cat-allergic people have to have an allergic reaction to find out.

    And if you don't have an extreme allergy to nicotine (or smoke), you are anal-retentive, and should seek professional help.

    Either way, smokers are not to blame.
    --
    Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been playful, rebellious, and immature. --Tom Robbins
    [ Parent ]

    who said anything about allergies? (none / 0) (#471)
    by lonemarauder on Mon Aug 05, 2002 at 03:45:14 AM EST

    I'm not allergic to cigarette smoke. It is simply *that* putrid and disgusting. Its fetidity is only exceeded by its permanence. Once it seeps into your hair and clothes, you will smell like it for the rest of the day. If you wear contacts, life can become miserable as you constantly fight a losing battle to keep the putrescence out of your eyes. If you wear glasses, smoke deposits a nasty film which is nearly impossible to clean. In my former life as a PC technician, we'd charge smokers extra to work on their computers because the tar from the cigarettes congealed the dust into sticky brown blobs whose consistency and odor exceed the misery of a cat allergy by any human definition of all that is vile. I've known people to literally turn away and vomit from the smell of a freshly opened computer case owned by a smoker.

    Such is the nature of the endless stream of purulence and filth I and others are subjected to by the habit of those who choose to smoke. From the lingering reek which sticks to your every sinew after eating lunch in a resturaunt with a smoking section to the countless and aptly named cigarette butts which litter every walkway and which I pick out of my lawn, smoking fills my life with filth and stench in a way you cannot imagine.

    If THAT makes me anal retentive, then I suggest you reevaluate the extent to which you justify YOUR addiction onto others.



    [ Parent ]
    So you don't like it? (none / 0) (#473)
    by tekue on Mon Aug 05, 2002 at 10:07:28 AM EST

    I guess your rant comes, quite expectively, to  that you don't like cigarette smoke. I on the other hand, don't like coffee. I hate the smell, which makes me want to puke; I hate the taste (I drunk some by an accident), which makes me puke. It stains the glasses, the armchairs, or anything else it comes in contact with.

    I also hate strong perfume smell. And the smell of sweat. And of some particular hand-creames. Would you like me to go on?

    But the point is, your (nor mine) dislike of something, and even it's ability of making your (or mine) life less great, do not (and should not) make it illegal. It doesn't really hurt you, it's just unpleasant, and as cruel as it may sound, you need to get over it. You'd probably be very surprised at how many people dislike many of the things you do, say, or own.
    --
    Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been playful, rebellious, and immature. --Tom Robbins
    [ Parent ]

    the subjectivity of human experience (none / 0) (#475)
    by lonemarauder on Tue Aug 06, 2002 at 05:57:37 PM EST

    The oft repeated "well I hate the things you say, do, or own as well!" defense when faced with the descriptions of the staggering level of filth cigarette smoking brings to the world attempts to cast the argument into the realm of the subjectivity of human experience.

    I make statements regarding my experience with people who smoke, and you reply with examples of other things you might find distasteful in others. Although these discussions are necessarily subjective, it defies any sense of intellectual honesty to compare the odor of cigarette smoke to that of hand cream.

    That being said, however, let us examine the argument from the point of view of human experience. The only way meaningful comparisons can be made of our different experiences is to weigh those experiences according to factors such as culture, etc., which may affect our experiences and interpretations. If you are addicted to nicotine (likely, considering this thread), then you operate under a compulsion which affects the behavior of addicts so severely that nearly every other daily concern is subjugated to the constant craving to sustain the level of the chemical within the addict's bloodstream. Concern for physical safety, the welfare of others, and even life itself have been known to take second place in an addict's mind to the acquisition and ingestion of the chemical to which they are addicted.

    If, as is certainly the case, nicotine addiction has led to such irrational behavior such as parents refusing to stop smoking to protect the life of an asthmatic child, or of emphysema victims forced to breathe oxygen burning themselves severely while attempting to continue smoking, is it reasonable to entertain the suggestion of such an addict that hand cream is as unpleasant as their addiction is to others?

    Put simply, because I am neither addicted to hand cream (thankfully) nor nicotine, my opinions with regard to their comparative unpleasantness carries more argumentative weight than yours, precisely because you will formulate and communicate opinions to protect your addiction.



    [ Parent ]
    Subjectivity. (none / 0) (#476)
    by tekue on Thu Aug 08, 2002 at 05:08:14 AM EST

    Although these discussions are necessarily subjective, it defies any sense of intellectual honesty to compare the odor of cigarette smoke to that of hand cream.
    Oh, really? Your reactions to and descriptions of the cigarette smoke indicate that you have an obsession. Obsessions are generally not logical, so any comparision would be futile. I can hate a hand-cream as much as you hate cigarette smoke.

    If you are addicted to nicotine (likely, considering this thread), then you operate under a compulsion which affects the behavior of addicts so severely that nearly every other daily concern is subjugated to the constant craving to sustain the level of the chemical within the addict's bloodstream. Concern for physical safety, the welfare of others, and even life itself have been known to take second place in an addict's mind to the acquisition and ingestion of the chemical to which they are addicted.
    You've mistaken nicotine addiction with heroin addiction. Get a grip on the reality, please.

    Put simply, because I am neither addicted to hand cream (thankfully) nor nicotine, my opinions with regard to their comparative unpleasantness carries more argumentative weight than yours, precisely because you will formulate and communicate opinions to protect your addiction.
    Yeah, especially regarding that I don't actually smoke cigarettes.

    BTW, where are the arguments?
    --
    Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been playful, rebellious, and immature. --Tom Robbins
    [ Parent ]

    Superb (none / 0) (#478)
    by spiralx on Thu Aug 15, 2002 at 06:38:28 PM EST

    Great comments there :)

    You're doomed, I'm doomed, we're all doomed for ice cream. - Bob Aboey
    [ Parent ]

    BullS*it (2.33 / 3) (#243)
    by dvchaos on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 08:01:25 AM EST

    "smoking is a minor annoyance". smoking kills you. smoking is bad, smoking is disgusting, it stinks, and helps make you incredibly unhealthy. Those that believe otherwise are probably smokers. Sorry, But I don't care if you want to kill yourself or not, (smoking causes appr 300 deaths per week) but frankly I want to live. and poison myself daily with your crap.

    --
    RAR.to - anonymous proxy server!
    [ Parent ]
    correction (none / 0) (#244)
    by dvchaos on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 08:03:20 AM EST

    *and not poison myself. (sorry)

    --
    RAR.to - anonymous proxy server!
    [ Parent ]
    Minor annoyance... (3.00 / 2) (#306)
    by Tezcatlipoca on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 07:17:46 PM EST

    I have had to rush to the hospital with sensitive people due to the results of the "minor annoyance" you are talking about.

    I will not talk about the 750 or 800 US$ I have to pay each year to get rid of the stench of smoke from my clothes (dry cleaning is fscking expensive, you know?) in an environment in which if you want to socialize you have to tolerate at least once in a while the stench of these addicts and the passivity of a goverment (the UK) that don't have the wits to tackle this problem head on, and why should I mention the annoyance that is to go to an hotel room after a hard day work just to be received by the stench of cigarrette of the room.

    Smokers and their apologists are egoists of the worst kind that hide behind supposed freedoms that the most elemental of logics says they should not have.
    ---
    "Every duck should aspire to be crispy and aromatic." sleepyhel

    [ Parent ]

    I heard that argument too. (none / 0) (#338)
    by lonemarauder on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 03:38:18 AM EST

    Unless you think that smoking should be illegal

    I heard that argument the same place you did. The Rush Limbaugh show.

    I DO think smoking should be illegal. Feel better?



    [ Parent ]
    I don't listen to limbaugh. (none / 0) (#360)
    by steveftoth on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 02:29:14 AM EST

    Don't tell me that I was actually agreeing with that guy. What is going on, am I turning republican?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, smoking in PUBLIC places should be illegal (4.00 / 2) (#347)
    by burbilog on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 09:12:37 AM EST

    > Unless you think that smoking should be > illegal, then I think that you should grow up. > People should be allowed to do whatever they > want to as long as it doesn't invade on other's > life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. Smoking > is a minor annoyance in this scheme of things. Apparently you don't know what asthma is. Smoking DO invade other's health. Asthma affects more than 5 percent of population and tobacco smoke poses deadly risk to some people. Shit, I had to buy a car (and it's an expensive toy in Russia) because I could not tolerate smoking bastards on bus stops. When such bastard enters the bus he breathes like dragon. The truth is that smoking people will never understand non-smoking. I saw one old smoker in hospital who was rushed with heavy asthma status and swollen legs smoking in the room with several other asthma patients. He had another status shortly, caused several problem to others but later refused to stop smoking, and stopped only when head doctor treated to call security and throw him out of hospital. Still he smoked at night in window, but the wind blew the smoke back. I was close to take chair and crush his skull. Fortunately it was my last day in the hospital and I left at morning (still with partial asthma status). Smoking affects other's health badly. That's why it MUST be regulated and pohibited in public places, like road rules prohibit drunk driving.
    -- If the life is just a game of D&D then the DM really sucks.
    [ Parent ]
    No (3.00 / 4) (#206)
    by Weezul on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 01:50:30 AM EST

    Its not that simple.  The debat is more like this:

    1) I hate or am allergic to smoke, but I want to go to a bar.

    vs.

    2) I want to smoke at a bar.

    Now the vasst majority of kurobots will tell you it should be up to the bar owner.  Clearly, this is one conclusion you could reach, but I think this is a bit short sighted.  You don't necissarily let anyone do anything they want on their own property for exactly these sorts of reasons.  We have liquer lissences, polution lissences, etc.  Bar owners could be expected to bid for smoking bar lissences.  The government would be responcible for limiting the number of smoking bar lissences to some reasonable fraction, say 20% of the total bars.  I suppose some of these would go to up skale stores which sold smokes almost exclusivly.  Alternativly, you could just make bars add a deck or smoking lounge if people wanted to smoke.  (btw, a smoking lounge usually just means a good AC unit to get rid of it)

    Anyway, my point is that its quit reasonable to eliminate smoking in most venues without eliminating it in all venues.  This would seem to be the ideal solution from my point of view.

    "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
    [ Parent ]

    License to kill (4.50 / 2) (#246)
    by A Trickster Imp on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 08:11:14 AM EST

    > We have liquer lissences, polution lissences, etc

    Liquor licenses are also arguably wrong.  So, too, taxi licenses or ANY license whose primary de facto purpose is to limit the number of people entry into a field.  That was one of the worst "features" of the ancient, discredited Clinton health plan.

    As for pollution, as long as it doesn't leak from your land, or into the ground water (shared) below your land, and as long as you notify any buyer of the pollution, you shouldn't need a license for that, either.

    For shared pollution (air, water, etc.) then the trading and selling of pollution "chips" is a good solution because the problem is total pollution in the air rather than individual smokestacks.

    [ Parent ]

    Somebody Else's Problem? (3.00 / 1) (#366)
    by Ziller on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 06:14:42 AM EST

    taxi licenses or ANY license whose primary de facto purpose is to limit the number of people entry into a field [are wrong].

    like driving licenses? i happen to like the current situation, where the vast majority of drivers have been certified as having a certain level of skill in handling their vehicle, thus reducing my risk of getting run over by some half-blind pensioner having an epileptic seizure compared to the free-for-all you're proposing.

    As for pollution, as long as it doesn't leak from your land, or into the ground water (shared) below your land, and as long as you notify any buyer of the pollution, you shouldn't need a license for that, either.

    mm-hmm. how do you propose making sure that leaks _never_ happen? "don't worry, they'll come up with something in a few hundred years?" I just read in national geographic that a permanent nuclear waste storage facility was required to prevent any leakage of radioactive material for 10,000 years. however a study was quoted as saying that the greatest leaks would be as far off as 400,000 years in the future, as the primary containers began to totally fail.

    For shared pollution (air, water, etc.) then the trading and selling of pollution "chips" is a good solution because the problem is total pollution in the air rather than individual smokestacks.

    that individual smokestack belching out fumes does definitely not affect a remote island on the other side of the world. it affects it's -- on a global scale -- immediate surroundings. give me one good reason why countries with the money to buy someone else's "chips" shouldn't be required to reduce their own pollution? all ecosystems are worth preserving, after all.




    --
    One skilled at battle takes a stand in the ground of no defeat
    And so does not lose the enemy's defeat."
    [ Parent ]
    Public land... (3.00 / 1) (#371)
    by The Private Fedora on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 09:23:48 AM EST

    like driving licenses? i happen to like the current situation, where the vast majority of drivers have been certified as having a certain level of skill in handling their vehicle, thus reducing my risk of getting run over by some half-blind pensioner having an epileptic seizure compared to the free-for-all you're proposing.

    You only need a driver's license if you are operating a vehicle on public land. Public land is defined as land that is owned by the government. There is no license required if one wishes to drive around on privately owned land, so your analogy would not apply to privately owned bars or restaurants.

    how do you propose making sure that leaks _never_ happen?

    No one can make sure that leaks never happen. Never is a very long time. However, if it is ever discovered that leaks <u>did</u> happen, then whomever owned the land that the pollution leaked to would have the right to sue the leaker for any cleanup costs, damages to property, etc.

    -------
    "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"
    Patrick Henry, The War Inevitable, March 23, 1775
    [ Parent ]

    I'm confused... (none / 0) (#295)
    by ragabr on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 04:33:17 PM EST

    you want to use someone else's property, *and* tell them what they can allow there.
    ...
    If you honestly don't see the problem there, I genuinely feel sorry for you.

    -------
    And my tongue would be made of chocolate. Mmmmm. Chocolate.
    -rusty
    [ Parent ]
    invalid argument (none / 0) (#337)
    by lonemarauder on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 03:27:00 AM EST

    you want to use someone else's property, *and* tell them what they can allow there.

    virtually all criminal and civil law follows you into a private place. Everything from the availability of bathrooms to the health code to the prohibition against killing you with billiard balls are regulated by law.

    I'm quite certain that if I walked up to you in a bar and hurled hot wet squishy feces at you, I would face certain legal recourse for doing so. To smoke in my presence has the same effect on my level of personal comfort as the actions I described would have upon yours.

    To suggest that laws regarding smoking somehow serve as a precedent of governmental intrusion as to how a bartender uses his/her facility is an invalid argument.



    [ Parent ]
    Courtesy and a personal taste (2.00 / 6) (#211)
    by BCoates on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 02:54:40 AM EST

    I find people who don't shower often enough foul and disgusting, but I don't think I'm entitled to outlaw that behavior.  If tobacco smoke bothers you, why not a) politely ask the people smoking to leave or b) avoid smokers in public?

    I think the world is big enough that a modicum of courtesy is enough to allow smokers and those who are bothered by smoking to co-exist peacefully without anyone (even the majority) forcing their tastes on everyone else.

    --
    Benjamin Coates

    [ Parent ]

    How often do you run into these people? (4.00 / 2) (#216)
    by ShadowNode on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 03:27:20 AM EST

    I imagine if there where enough people who didn't shower, there'd be BO bylaws passed. You're right, people shouldn't be forcing their tastes on everyone else, that's what this is about. I don't want to be forced to smell tobacco smoke.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#238)
    by Rogerborg on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 07:36:16 AM EST

      I find people who don't shower often enough foul and disgusting, but I don't think I'm entitled to outlaw that behavior

    The United States Court of Appeals (Third Circuit) disagrees with you, at least in regard to libraries being allowed to mandate standards of hygiene (and dress and behaviour).


    "Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
    [ Parent ]

    Not on the same scale (4.75 / 4) (#278)
    by acronos on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 02:42:32 PM EST

    I find smoke to be at least 60 times as noxious as body odor.  Smoke causes pain, BO just causes annoyance.  Smoke saturates an entire building, BO rarely travels more than a few feet.  I don't go to restaurants where people smoke.  I don't buy cars from smokers.  I don't think the two are on the same scale.  If you do then your body is different from mine.

    [ Parent ]
    TheBus (none / 0) (#336)
    by Irobot on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 02:34:25 AM EST

    Obviously, you've never ridden TheBus in Hawai'i through downtown Honolulu. It was always an adventure - lots of times in gag control. Ho brah - tank goodness dey use da kine plastic seats! Aiya, da bums - dey steenk so bad!

    Irobot

    The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
    [ Parent ]

    reality check (none / 0) (#339)
    by lonemarauder on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 03:43:48 AM EST

    There is no such thing as a polite conversation with a smoker regarding their all important addiction. Smokers are consistently intransigent nearly to the point of violence when it comes to when and where they can smoke.



    [ Parent ]
    Come off it (none / 0) (#346)
    by thenerd on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 08:09:00 AM EST

    Don't make a generalisation like that - every smoker I can think of would immediately stop smoking if you asked them politely.

    [ Parent ]
    You're right (5.00 / 2) (#355)
    by BCoates on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 06:58:00 PM EST

    The replies to (and rather hostile rating of) my comment has convinced me that it is, sadly, not possible for people to peacefully tolerate trivial differences in preferences. Like small children, they require carefully-regulated conformity to ensure they don't hurt or offend each other.

    In sameness is strength!  All hail the whim of the majority!

    --
    Benjamin Coates

    [ Parent ]

    Or maybe . . . (2.00 / 3) (#141)
    by refulgence on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 06:43:31 PM EST

    ... people who believe in conspiracy theories have higher levels of dopamine. There is no reason to assume that brain chemistry is causitive; for instance depressed people show a change in brain chemistry after psychotherapy alone.


    ______________________________________________
    "Disgust is the appropriate response to most situations."  JennyHolzer
    Smoking = Good (4.58 / 12) (#146)
    by glassware on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 06:54:38 PM EST

    I am a non-smoker. I live in California. The smoking laws that have been passed have made me conclude something:

    I should take up smoking.

    I have noticed that all my friends who smoke get out more. They take quick breaks all day, getting a brief distraction from work, and get some sunshine and time to chill. They actually get to have non-work-related conversations. A number of my smoking friends have met up with their spouses simply by smoking in the same place.

    On the other hand, I am a non-smoker. Although the state technically allows me to take 15-minute breaks during the day, I don't do it, and if I did, my boss would wonder what I was doing. I stay cooped up in the office all day.

    I like clubs without smoking. The nightclub I go to has a much better dancing environment now that smoking isn't allowed. Even better, smokers now go outside, and there's a nice hangout area away from the dance floor.

    In short, what I used to find a disgusting, reprehensible habit is now quite appealing. If only I could find some way to smoke something that wouldn't kill me, I'd start.



    The Answer (3.71 / 7) (#161)
    by Funky Fresh on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 07:45:23 PM EST

    I believe marijuana is the answer to your quandry, with the exception that it's just more than a little illegal.

    [ Parent ]
    No (3.00 / 2) (#220)
    by kvan on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 04:18:03 AM EST

    Marijuana smoke is at least as unsafe as tobacco smoke, healthwise. Besides, it wouldn't solve the workday issue, unless his employer actually allows being stoned or drunk at work.

    Let me instead recommend cigars and/or pipes. When not inhaled, smoking these produces no increase in lung cancer risk. They do present a small increase in risk of cancers of the esophagus and soft palate, but the risk isn't worse than e.g. getting in a car.

    "Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, most do." - Bertrand Russell


    [ Parent ]
    Actually... (5.00 / 2) (#294)
    by ragabr on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 04:30:36 PM EST

    you're completely wrong. While marijuana does contain larger amounts of tar than tabacco, it has not been shown to correlate to any diseases whatsoever. Most tabacco is adulterated with hundreds of substances that have been shown to cause harm to the human body while marijuana neither contains nor is commonly laced with any of these chemicals.

    There have not been any proper studies linking marijuana with any long-term risks that have been supported by further study, in fact I don't think there are any at all.

    -------
    And my tongue would be made of chocolate. Mmmmm. Chocolate.
    -rusty
    [ Parent ]
    Sorry (1.00 / 1) (#318)
    by kvan on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 08:28:13 PM EST

    I should have put a "probably" into my statement. Still, with tar pretty much the number one suspect as far as smoking/lung cancer causation is concerned, I think it's reasonable to be extremely wary about long term marijuana smoking in this regard--especially since there are no studies on the subject (that either of us knows of). I would say that common sense dictates that inhaling any kind of smoke on a regular and long term basis probably isn't good for you, though.

    "Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, most do." - Bertrand Russell


    [ Parent ]
    tar? (none / 0) (#341)
    by lonemarauder on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 04:18:24 AM EST

    I thought lung cancer was caused by nicotine

    Besides, since Marijuana isn't addictive, the it wouldn't carry many of the social/health effects.



    [ Parent ]
    Well, it's not (none / 0) (#345)
    by kvan on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 05:35:55 AM EST

    Nicotine is readily absorbed and distributed through the bloodstream, which is why it can affect the brain and cause addiction. Tar, on the other hand, is not absorbed; it's deposited on the surfaces it passes in the larynx, bronchia and lungs. That's why it's the prime suspect in the causation of smoking-related cancer.

    "Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, most do." - Bertrand Russell


    [ Parent ]
    well now (none / 0) (#466)
    by lonemarauder on Fri Aug 02, 2002 at 11:03:02 AM EST

    I looked it up, and you're right.

    I guess it's nicotine patches and brownies for all of us.



    [ Parent ]
    In the same way that alcohol is a social lubricant (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by Bora Horza Gobuchol on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 08:03:37 PM EST

    I concluded long ago that one of the primary reasons people drink is for its social effect - it makes them relaxed enough with other people to have a fun time. I also conluded that I didn't need to imbibe an artifical depressant to feel relaxed and honest with people. For many, drinking is also a means to de-stress and unwind from the day.

    From what I see in my smoking friends, cigarettes play very much the same role. It doesn't make drinking or smoking right. I personally wish people would find another outlet.

    On another note - when the writer has to defend smoker's rights to inhale wherever and whenever they want to by drawing analogies to people crashing cars into homes, the argument is pretty much over. I can appreciate and support anyone's right to campaign their point of view - but after awhile those who have a bone to chew with the world just get strident, dogmatic, and tiring.

    It's really very simple. Yes, you have a right to smoke. But you have a responsibility to not adversely affect others in your actions - whether through the threat of disease or otherwise.
    -- "Don't criticise. Create a better alternative."
    [ Parent ]

    Try it in Chicago area in January (none / 0) (#204)
    by Irobot on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 01:41:57 AM EST

    Damn Californians. Man, will I miss living in Hawai'i this winter...

    Irobot

    The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
    [ Parent ]

    Rights of the Business Owner (3.75 / 12) (#149)
    by willj on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 07:19:10 PM EST

    What pisses me off most about these laws is that it takes away the rights of owners of the bars and whatnot. Why should I not be allowed to open a bar here in California for smokers? If non-smokers don't like my bar then they can go elsewhere. I think voting with the dollar is a much better answer than legislation.

    Will


    Actually (3.00 / 4) (#165)
    by icastel on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 07:53:09 PM EST

    I know a lot of bars in So. Cal. where I can smoke. The only risk is if a police officer walks in, you get fined.


    -- I like my land flat --
    [ Parent ]
    Looking the other way (4.00 / 3) (#172)
    by willj on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 08:17:35 PM EST

    Because the bar owner looks the other way doesn't mean that the laws don't still apply and are unjust. But you are right. Many of my favorite bars in the valley allow smoking but still have their notices posted.

    Will


    [ Parent ]

    The Latest Study Has Shown ... (3.60 / 5) (#164)
    by icastel on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 07:51:56 PM EST

    That cigarette smoke is actually more harmful to the non-smoker by virtue of his/her body defenses. The study states that "after as little as six months of smoking, the smoker's lungs and throat are coated with a protective layer of tar, which prevents further damage to their organism. Non-smokers," the study continues, "because of their partial exposure to smoke never get a chance to really develop the protective layer. This leaves their respiratory organs in a permanent 'unshielded' state leading to cancer development."

    Of course the above paragraph should be surrounded by <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags.




    -- I like my land flat --
    Why? (3.83 / 6) (#168)
    by marc987 on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 08:08:25 PM EST

    As i walk downtown i'm exposed to 10 to 100 cars per minute passing by me, hundreds to thousands upwind, millions etc, etc... and each car is generating a continous stream of "exhaust" through a 1 1\2 inch pipe.

    Why don't we see the same effort to denounce this situation or even just quantify it's health effect?

    Of course SHS is not good in an unventilated area(just like a camp fire(whose smoke is just as cancer causing))

    Most people don't even "smell" car exhaust anymore, somehow this seems scary to me.

    bad argument, bad habit (2.50 / 6) (#184)
    by bigelephant on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 10:10:25 PM EST

    You seem to not understand some things. Cars are specifically regulated to produce non-harmful emissions. They are not supposed to produce much beyond CO2, which is 100% safe for your health. That's why you have to use unleaded fuel and have a catalytic converter. That's also why it's not really possible to smell car exhaust (assuming it's a new car and not a diesel/other large vehicle). Tobacco smoke, on the other hand, contains thousands of nasty chemicals, tars, and other nasty things. Even if it doesn't cause cancer, it causes heart and lung disease and the smell is very unpleasant - MUCH worse than any possible car exhaust. Please stop using stupid arguments to justify a nasty drug addiction. Smoking is and will remain harmful no matter how many studies tobacco companies fund.

    [ Parent ]
    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#213)
    by ti dave on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 03:22:14 AM EST

    ...CO2, which is 100% safe for your health.

    I'd like you to tie a plastic bag over your head, then get back to me in 20 minutes or so, so that we can verify that it's 100% safe.

    "If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

    [ Parent ]
    The CO2 wouldn't kill you (5.00 / 2) (#267)
    by Dephex Twin on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 12:01:44 PM EST

    The lack of oxygen would, of course.



    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
    [ Parent ]
    That is only half-true (4.75 / 4) (#298)
    by nusuth on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 04:55:19 PM EST

    Well the acute and fatal breath-poisoning limit for carbon dioxide is about 3% by volume of environmental air. Assuming there is virtually no carbon dioxide in the air and ideal gas laws is a reasonable approximation (which is), volumetric percent of CO2+O2 mixture is always 21% in the bag+your respiratory apparatus. The bag runs out of oxygen much later than there is enough carbon dioxide in the bag (18 O2, 3 CO2) to kill you. You can easily survive with air composed of 18% oxygen, 82% biologically inert gas.

    OK, now the half-true part, you won't be able die from CO2 poisoning because CO2 poisoning takes a bit longer to kill than one can endure lack of enough oxygen. With the nylon bag, you will die of lack of oxygen. Had that been a sufficiently larger volume (eg. perfectly sealed room), you would die from CO2 poisoning.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe a better argument would be (5.00 / 1) (#330)
    by Dephex Twin on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 12:30:05 AM EST

    that pure oxygen will kill you too.


    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
    [ Parent ]
    Smog? (3.50 / 2) (#290)
    by marc987 on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 04:08:38 PM EST

    A short list of the most commun pathogens in car exhaust:

    Carbon monoxide
    Nitrogen dioxide
    Nitrogen monoxide
    Sulphur dioxide
    Suspended particles including PM-10, particles less than 10 microns in size.
    Benzene
    Formaldehyde
    Polycyclic hydrocarbons

    At times i "smell" car exhaust but have to repress my senses. It is an oppressive sensation from which there is no escape. Like the sound of a fridge, that is forever present, the mind cuts it out of active perception.

    [ Parent ]

    actually (5.00 / 1) (#313)
    by blisspix on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 07:59:28 PM EST

    i really notice when it's a smoggy day. sinusitis flares up, migraines start, yeah i can tell. it's one of the reasons why I don't have a car, I don't want to add to emissions. I travel by electric train and foot.

    i think it's disgraceful that emissions are as high as they are, and that the Australian government has rejected the Kyoto agreement.

    it's not that people don't care, it's that when you have a human willingly breathing tar into the air it's easier to blame them than the nameless/faceless corporations and car manufacturers.

    [ Parent ]

    Environmental pollution studies (none / 0) (#414)
    by katie on Tue Jul 30, 2002 at 08:23:13 AM EST

    Actually, having gone and had a look at this, it's a very understudied subject - I suspect for a couple of reasons.

    One is that it's even harder to associate deaths from pollution with the cause, one is that causes of death are very specific, and one is that everytime anyone studies it they get scary numbers.

    {The causes of death thing is kind of interesting: people don't die of "smoking" or "living in a polluted city", they die of "metastisized lung cancer" or "pneumonia".}

    The estimates I've seen, are that something in the region of 100-150,000 people a year die in the UK from either pollution triggered or pollution worsened conditions. That compares to about 180-200,000 from things fairly directly attributable to smoking.

    (Just for illustration, and because there's also a related thread about it: deaths from speeding in the UK would be about 30% of the total: or about 900 a year out of 3000 people killed in car crashes.

    Plus there's the note that most exposure to vehicle emissions comes from being in the queues of traffic...

    Suddenly it almost seems sensible to let people do100 miles an hour when they can so they spend less time in their cars, and even if it doubles the accident death rate, it's probably worth it in the long run...)

    The good news is that it's improving. Modern car engines are a lot cleaner burning and power stations are scrubbing their emissions and so on.


    [ Parent ]

    Rights (3.50 / 20) (#176)
    by godix on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 08:29:06 PM EST

    I'd just like to point out something that apperently most of you just don't get. You do NOT have the right to breath totally pure air. If you did, no factories would ever be allowed, all vehicles would be banned, many animals would be destroyed (cat dander plays hell with asthma), and our biggest 'war' would be the war on dust. Obviously none of this is true, so saying smoking makes the air a tad bit dirtier isn't an useful arguement.

    You also don't have the right to a nice smelling enviroment. If you did, you could force random strangers to take a bath whenever you wanted, cars would be banned (again), so would factories, and also dogs that roll in their own crap. Again, none of this is true so banning smoking because it smells bad isn't really a valid arguement either. Plus some people find the smell of a cigar pleasant so there'd be a fight on who's sense of smell do we go by.

    You do have the right not to be directly harmed by another persons actions though. As this article covers, it's very debateable on if SHS does cause cancer or not. Until the facts are known to a degree better than the standard 200 point, people freedoms shouldn't be limited. Incidently, the EPA was only talking about Cancer. Other diseases, such as asthma, are much easier to prove as harmed by SHS. It's also fairly easy to prove asthma and the like are harmed by dust or cat hair, so this point is of minor use to the anti-smoking mindset.

    Basically it boils down to this. When I have the right to tell fat people to not wear spandex because it offends my sight, or I have the right to tell people to turn off their rap music because it bothers my ears, or I have the right to tell someone to turn off their car because it's exhast is bothering my eyes then you will have the right to tell me to quit smoking because it offends your sense of smell or bothers your eyes. Until I have those rights, you can just shut up and go away if you don't like my smoking.

    Supreme court... (3.33 / 3) (#185)
    by X3nocide on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 10:22:46 PM EST

    During the days in which people actually went to drive in movies, there was a stir about R rated movies being shown in public sight. "Bare breasts in plain sight!?!" a small but vocal minority complained. "I shouldn't have to be subjected to this offensive material!" And as you can surmise (otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it) this turned into a lawsuit that found its way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the First Amendment. At all times the viewer had the oppertunity NOT to look at the screen.

    Now, there's no right in the Constitution enumerating (yes, a deliberately chosen term) the right to smoke anywhere. Little seperates tobbacco from marijuana, and yet one of these has been severly restricted through law. But should any court be given the oppertunity to rule on the issue, the equivelant of looking away really isn't an option. Not breathing just can't happen.

    The worst part in this whole issue is that so many governemnts are dependent on smoking. Sin taxes on the stuff that does so well no State in its right mind would consider banning the material in a declining economy. As John Stuart Mill said, taxing is a lesser form of prohibition. All and all I'm rather confused on this issue. The only thing I'm sure of is that second hand smoke can't be good for you. And I'm pretty sure you have the rights you asked for in your final paragraph.

    pwnguin.net
    [ Parent ]

    More smoking (4.83 / 6) (#191)
    by godix on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 11:14:13 PM EST

    "At all times the viewer had the oppertunity NOT to look at the screen."

    What exactly was the point of this example? That non-smokers at all times have the opportunity to walk away from a smoker if it bothers them? That people have the opportunity to breath clean air? (BTW: They don't. Cars, dirt, factories, animals, dust, sprays, giant fires burning half a state, and yes, occasionally cigarette smoke deny them that opportunity) It certainly can't be that smokers at all times have the oppotunity to smoke, because the entire point of the anti-smoking crusade is to make damn sure we can't do it anywhere expect at home (and in some cases not there either).

    "Now, there's no right in the Constitution enumerating (yes, a deliberately chosen term) the right to smoke anywhere."

    Nor is there a right to totally clean air or a right to not have smelly air. I never said it was my right to smoke, I said it wasn't your right to have air unpolluted by my smoke. A lot of people seem to believe this is so, but I have yet to see any real proof of this. See above for some examples of things dirtying the air. Note that on only one example is the nation as a whole going on a 'I can't breath' jihad about.

    "any court be given the oppertunity to rule on the issue,"

    Ummm, a court already did rule on this issue. They threw out clear FUD by the EPA. FUD that is  still being used to attack smokers despite being thrown out by court.

    "All and all I'm rather confused on this issue."

    So am I. It's to be expected when the government flat out lies about the issue for the last decade or so.

    "The only thing I'm sure of is that second hand smoke can't be good for you."

    No, but I can list a whole lot of other things that are forced on you by others that can't be good for you. When I see a campaign to ban all cars from spewing more carcinogens going down my street than I can smoke in a year then I will probably look on anti-smoking efforts with more favor. As it is, all I see are a bunch of people who personally don't like something so they're looking for any excuse they can make up to ban it.

    "And I'm pretty sure you have the rights you asked for in your final paragraph."

    Reread my last paragraph. I wasn't saying I didn't have the right to ask people not to do those things, I was saying I didn't have the right to ORDER people to not do those things. There is a difference.

    Just a note: I was rather hostile in my original post. Here's an explanation of why. I, and most smokers I've seen, will put out a cigarette if asked politely. I tend to get slightly hostile when a non-smoker orders me to put out a cigarette instead of asking nicely. I get really hostile when people go out of their way to push a non-smoking agenda (IE someone who will sit in a smoking section and then bitch about the smokers). The EPA faking reports so bad that a court throws them out as biased is them going out of their way to push a non-smoking agenda. People who seem to think that faking scientific reports is perfectly ok as long as it pushes their agenda are also going out of their way. I appologize to any polite anti-smokers around, but from what I've seen of the comments there aren't many of you.

    [ Parent ]

    Interesting (none / 0) (#198)
    by godix on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 12:41:22 AM EST

    This is the first comment I've ever had rated by more than 2 people that got all 5's or 1's. Not even my comments abour Israel/Palestine managed that. The clear polarization is interesting. For those of you who did rate my comment, please post if you're a smoker or non-smoker. I'd be interested in comparing that to the ratings, although I can probably take a good guess already.

    [ Parent ]
    Smokers and non-smokers are just as dumb (none / 0) (#221)
    by Caton on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 04:30:38 AM EST

    You are concentrating on the wrong issue. Nobody really cares if SHS is dangerous or not. The laws against smoking are going to stay. The smokers will keep smoking. Non-smoking morons will keep irritating smokers. And smoking morons will keep irritating non-smokers. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.

    The real concern, here, is that the EPA voluntarily faked a scientific report for political purposes.

    Scientific reports from the EPA are used to legiferate about things like nuclear waste disposal, something that IMHO is slightly more important that nocivity of SHS.

    Can the EPA still be trusted? That's the issue here.

    ---
    As long as there's hope...
    [ Parent ]

    Um.... Problem (3.50 / 2) (#274)
    by SuperSheep on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 01:41:32 PM EST

    I do have a right to clean air, which is why every single artificial source you listed is strictly regulated to make them as clean as ficially able (with some room for lobbying). Smoke stacks have to have scrubbers and smokestacks have to be a certain height to keep the emissions out of the readily breathable air. Cars are regulated to reduce their emissions or did you forget that yearly thing you do?

    Cats and dogs can't do anything about their dander and dust gets vacuumed in my house and I put filters to reduce it as much as possible and my friends with asthma don't come to my house (my problem, not theirs) because I miss their company.

    However I don't bring these things into enclosed spaces I don't own. Restaurants, museums, hotels etc, planes (passenger area, smart@$$). I also don't subject you to my contaminants.

    As far as my own home. That's to do with as I see fit. Now if I had a child who had asthma, you can bet that animal would have another home fast, as painful as it would be.

    As to your argument about smell. I do not have a right to smell nice things. Smoke makes me gag and it makes my eyes water. It also kills me, albiet slowly. Can I shoot you? It'll kill you a little faster, but isn't it all just a matter of time anyway.

    SuperSheep
    You only know what you know, everything else is hearsay.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't take my drugs away damn it! (3.88 / 17) (#178)
    by chbm on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 08:48:07 PM EST

    So this made it through to the page, time to take it apart instead of just taking cheap shots.
    anti-smoking zealots
    "zealots" read, the ones getting screwed.
    These chapters were ordered to be vacated from the study as a whole
    what did this chapters say ? how did this impact in the study overall ? it seems you never did bother to read the study but instead you picked up cnn snipets.
    Many other studies, which are decidedly anti-smoking,
    read, not payed by tobbaco companies
    anti-smoking lobbyists
    ah! the anti-smoking lobbyists! fear their power! the poor helpless tobacco companies lobbies try to grovel for the crums of lobbying left for them by those lobbying power houses, the non smokers with their millions of dollars! or is it the other way around ? i forget.
    Each of these local, or statewide laws can trace their beginings to the EPA's well publicized findings in 1993
    they do ? you've read each one and they quote the study ? or do you imply there are no other studies ?
    In the end, however, the EPA only used the findings of 11 of the 30 studies.
    What was the criteria ? Or you don't know why they were droped and just find it fiting to imply they were droped cause they didn't agree with the evil non smokers ?
    other studies have since come forth do dispute this
    What studies ? Your example his just pathetic. You're using a study that took place in Europe to debunk a study that was made in USA, a totally diferent environment. Again the Torygraph doesn't present any details of this study except the bottom line results. Notice the bottom paragraph that clearly states this study was paid for by the tobacco companies. guess what sherlock.
    Other studies show non smokers suffer a 3fold increase in CO levels in lungs after 1 hour of exposure to SHS. I guess your in depth investigation didn't turn that up or you would have surely mentioned it. Even other studies show SHS is much worse the direct smoke because is not filtered and has much higher amounts of tar and elements like lead, chlorine and sulphur.
    Because of how they found their findings, the EPA gave SHS a Relative Risk (RR) rating of 1.19.
    and how exactly was that ?
    So if 100 non-smokers who never got exposed to SHS got lung cancer, of those who were exposed to SHS, there should be 119 cases of lung cancer.
    This is just about the worst way of puting this and doens't show a lot of Probability skills, but ok.
    Normally, any RR of below 2.0 is thrown out as being inconsequential.
    They discard anything less than doubling the risk ? That doesn't make any sense and I fairly doubt that.
    however, that in order to get their numbers to be this high, the EPA doubled their margin of error for the findings while the studies were already taking place.
    what exactly does this mean ? without knowledge about the testing method used and what error margins you're refering to this assertion is meaningless.
    the Congressional Research Service issued their review of the EPA's findings in 1995.
    let me point out another quote from that review:
    "OSHA estimated that the proposed smoking restrictions would prevent 0.4 to 1.0 lung cancer death per 1000 workers exposed to ETS over a 45-year working lifetime. Assuming there are 74 million nonsmokers in the workforce, this is equivalent to avoiding between 144 and 722 lung cancer deaths each year.91 The agency estimated that the annual cost of compliance with the rule's smoking restrictions would range from zero to $68 million,"
    how many people can we afford to save ?
    The above quotes taken from Davehitt.com.
    I see you read the digest version, compiled by a smoker.
    On July 17, 1998, Judge William Osteen finally passed judgment on the case.
    I find it amusing to say the least a court passing judgment about a scientific report.
    I find it even more amusing this went to court in North Carolina, a state which depends on tobacco farming and has nearly half of the USA tobacco related jobs.

    You acuse the EPA study of being twisted to support their goals. What exactly is your article then ?

    I see you shouting at a quarter lungs, "see SHS doesn't kill!!" and I say, who cares ?? It's full choke full of toxic substances, it's stench and it provokes irritations and alergies. If you want it allowed in public places don't complain when you start getting sprayed with methane, chlorine, sulphur or simply spat upon. Don't complain when I install a 20W microlink just in front of your house. Don't complain when I put down my 50l tank of gas next to you at a restaurant. Or will you present studies that say I can't do that ?

    -- if you don't agree reply don't moderate --

    Thank you (4.30 / 10) (#179)
    by CthulhuCravesSouls on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 08:53:52 PM EST

    Cthulhu is best served by these naked untruths. Consider the 20/20 News "report" on so-called harassment of smokers. It's an editorial by curmudgeonly John Stossell. I love him, someday I'll have to send Deep Ones to take him back to the briny sea. Oh yes, I digress. Read the masthead and the story and tell me if you disagree it's an editorial and not a "report" as our oppressed smoker friend protests. In addition, the scientific report he cites above was funded by the tobacco industry: "Our findings are completely independent of any influence from the industry " (which funded this little soiree). Finally, he is citing sources which have known links to the tobacco industry's astro-turf campaign. Astro-turf is the fiendishly phony grassroots spin campaign by paid consultants of the... tobacco industry. Now smoke away my lovely children.

    Science has become pathetic (2.50 / 10) (#181)
    by mmealman on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 09:42:08 PM EST

    The atkins diet was right, no wait it was wrong, no wait it was right. Smoking causes this, no wait it causes that. Second hand smoke kills, no wait this study says differently. We're headed for another ice age, no wait global warming is upon us instead and we're all gonna fry.

    Sometimes I think we could save a lot of money and get just as accurate results if we scrapped science and used a magic eight ball.

    This isn't science (5.00 / 7) (#187)
    by epepke on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 10:43:24 PM EST

    It's politicization by people who have already scrapped science. Scientists who use statistics are trained in statistical methods. I have never, once, seen a press article concerning that made even a vague suggestion of an impression of apprehending, let alone understanding, statistics. Reporters will assert that someone with 43% of the vote is "slightly ahead" of someone with 40% of the vote, even if it says, in plain language, that the margin of error is 5%.


    The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


    [ Parent ]
    Abuse of statistics (OT) (5.00 / 2) (#258)
    by nusuth on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 10:05:26 AM EST

    People have fundemental problems with statistical reasoning that can only be "solved" (not really, that would make RW very difficult to interact) by proper training. Asking them to understand two different numbers are not different at all when we want to be sure of something that much, but they are different when we just relax our confidence requirements is a bit too much. As far as I can tell, most often encountered political misuse of statistics utilize:

    a) ignoring or hiding base rates (eg. "evil chemical D is found in 95% of blood samples of cancer patients...")

    b) promoting insignificant differences to significance (your example is good)

    c) ignoring third and fourth cells of contingency table - sorry forgot their names (eg. "there is only one in a million chance that a random person's DNA would match sample from crime scene. This guy's DNA matches the sample, so he was at the crime scene with 0.999999 probability" *)

    d) and ofcourse, the everyone's favorite: implying causation using correlation.

    * : Many educated people can spot flaws in a, b and d easily but I have seen many people, whose intelligence I trust, not spotting the problem with c.

    The problem is while it is important that how such a match can occur on purely random basis, how often a non-match occurs is also important. To illustrate, consider the police randomly arrests and does the test for a billion guys (all of one billion possible criminals, I will return to non-arrested potential criminals case shortly), while crime could have been committed by only one person. They would have a thousand matches (on average), at least 999 of them obviously false positives. If test never misses a real match, someone tested positive is the criminal with only 0.001 probability. Now, notice that how many people are actually tested is irrelevant. As long as the tests miss rate is 0 and we could have arrested any one of those billion, one particular match still has one in a thousand probability of belonging to the criminal. The rate has gone from one in a billion to one in a thousand, but still is far from conclusive.

    Also notice the miss rate is also significant. This is far easier to illustrate, assume that tester is lazy and randomly says "match" once in a millon times without doing any test at all. The assertion that "guy X's DNA matches guy Y's DNA only once in a millon" is still correct, but the test obviously gives no usable data since guy X's DNA matches himself only once in a millon times too.



    [ Parent ]

    More statistics (none / 0) (#281)
    by epepke on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 03:25:46 PM EST

    For those who are interested but don't want to spend a lot of time in a class, I recommend How to Lie with Statistics and Innumeracy


    The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


    [ Parent ]
    Read a journal (5.00 / 5) (#229)
    by faecal on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 05:47:57 AM EST

    Mainstream media never gave good science. Good science is still going strong, the trouble is that you have to be a scientist to understand a lot of it, and a reasonably intelligent individual to understand the rest. Media organisations are well aware of the (low) IQ of their audience, and deliver content accordingly - corrupted and oversimplified.



    [ Parent ]

    asthma (3.81 / 11) (#183)
    by turmeric on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 10:03:32 PM EST

    therefore, you are wrong.

    Asthma... (3.00 / 7) (#202)
    by godix on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 01:31:28 AM EST

    ...is made worse by cat dander. So we should ban all cats from public places and not allow them in private homes if the neighbors complain. Sure the asthmatics could just walk away from a cat but that's not the point. Asmatics deserve to be able to go anywhere they want without cat dander, even if it's in middle of a pet shop! Some people enjoy them sure, but it's not like they serve a public good like automobiles do. There is no reason these peoples choice of pets should cause any suffering at any time to asthmatics. If some cat owners don't like this, well screw them, it's not my fault their pet choice is a public health danger.

    Does this sound a little wrong? How exactly is it different than the anti-smoking arguements?

    [ Parent ]

    Actually... (5.00 / 2) (#227)
    by faecal on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 05:45:02 AM EST

    You're not supposed to let your cats outdoors on their own. They're disease carriers. I seem to remember a big discussion about this a while ago.

    [ Parent ]
    COOL! (none / 0) (#251)
    by godix on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 09:22:17 AM EST

    I didn't realize Cats were a public health threat. Does this mean I'm morally justified if I run over on of the damned things?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes! (none / 0) (#254)
    by faecal on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 09:44:17 AM EST

    Absolutely. It shouldn't have been out. If it was in the road, it was causing a serious traffic hazard.

    [ Parent ]
    No jurisdiction (3.66 / 6) (#192)
    by LJ on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 11:17:43 PM EST

    The Federal Courts shouldn't have any jurisdiction over scientific studies, no matter who they are performed by or how ridiculous the researchers are. This is already performed(supposedly) by peer review. The fact that a Federal Court can do this is an obscenity upon the scientific world. What's next? Some Federal judge or a senator(perhaps Orrin Hatch or <cough>Bush<cough>) declaring the Theory of Evolution invalid and "untruthful"?

    -LJ
    "A feature is a bug the programmers don't want to fix"

    Court case (3.20 / 5) (#201)
    by godix on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 01:24:17 AM EST

    A) This study casts negative light on a product that quite probably made people quit using the product. If the study is wrong and was known to be wrong by the EPA when they published it, that's certainly worth suing over. The EPA flat out lied. All indications are that this is intentional instead of a simple mistake. They were using their position as a government agency to intentionally inflict finacial damage on legal companies. Are you seriously saying companies should not have any legal way of fighting this?

    B) Government studies get less peer review than private studies. Especially when the government study is just a metastudy based on already peer-reviewed private studies.

    C) The Federal Court was brought in because the EPA had already commited an obscenity upon the scientific world. If there was no indication that the EPA had lied, the court case would either have been thrown out or never brought up to begin with.

    D) Why bring Bush and Hatch into this? Neither smoking or the EPA report have anything to do with him. Are you actually so proud of your cheap shots that you can't wait for a topic that they're actually relevant in?

    [ Parent ]

    before i finish the article.... (4.00 / 9) (#195)
    by ph0rk on Fri Jul 26, 2002 at 11:32:29 PM EST

    >>> the EPA doubled their margin of error for the findings while the studies were already taking place.

    I just have to say that this is absolutely the worst kind of UNscience ever.  Grad students get kicked out of school for this.  

    sorry, that was just too much to let slide.
    [ f o r k . s c h i z o i d . c o m ]

    now that I'm done... (3.25 / 8) (#196)
    by ph0rk on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 12:05:29 AM EST

    As an occasional pipe and cigar smoker, I am certainly biased.  However, while purely anecdotal and worthless by all scientific standards, i have an anecdote:

    My grandmother, clearly a child of the last century, ate every day of heavy fat laden foods, and drank liquor with abandon.  She also smoked between a pack and a pack and a half of Marlboro Reds a day.  For those that aren't in the know, Marly Reds are the harshest and nastiest (and perhaps most tar laden, at least of the Marlboro mileau).

    I use past tense because she is, of course, very dead.  Halloween night, 2000, in fact.  Was it lung cancer, or some other tobacco related illness?

    No.  It was old age (she was 87) and massive complications from diabetes (see above about fatty foods a nd liquor).

    I've had second hand smoke from my grandparents home since i was an infant.  My mother has as well, and she is 52.  any cancer i nthe family? yes. skin cancer.  too much sun.

    So, yes, I am biased, but i've ALWAYS thought the EPA studies were full of shit.
    [ f o r k . s c h i z o i d . c o m ]

    What if she lived longer? (4.50 / 2) (#217)
    by Rainy on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 03:35:30 AM EST

    Let me see if I understand your point: if she didn't smoke, she'd still die at 87 because of bad food and her non-smoking would be a meaningless sacrifice. Right? But she did not know that! They can't tell you at 20, "hey, you'll die in a car crash when you're 76, so you might as well do coke and H and whatnot, 'shrooms on the side, swim in alligator bay, jump from a plane with unchecked 'chute bag; stand close to exploding nuclear devices, jump from cape Cod into the water, sleep with a barracuda, piss off gang members with indecent gestures, dive into the Uknown and Dangerous waters of Danger Itself. Make faces at passing Death.

    It's all dangerous, to be sure, but what of it if you know where and when you'll fall into the trembling anxious hands of the grim reaper?

    But, for better or worse, we don't know. Therefore, it makes sense to try to avoid any and all harmful things that may lead to our untimely demise, because that'd just suck too much!
    --
    Rainy "Collect all zero" Day
    [ Parent ]

    Just wondering (none / 0) (#273)
    by Irobot on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 01:33:09 PM EST

    Therefore, it makes sense to try to avoid any and all harmful things that may lead to our untimely demise, because that'd just suck too much!
    <pondering, not being a dick>
    The only certain cause of death is birth. If you try to avoid "any and all harmful things," how do you get yourself out the door every morning?
    </pondering, not being a dick>

    Irobot

    The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
    [ Parent ]

    Easy (none / 0) (#305)
    by Rainy on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 06:14:04 PM EST

    Avoiding danger does not mean I never walk by a cigar shop, it just means that I never go in, buy a pack and smoke it. Avoiding danger is looking both ways when crossing a road, not never getting yourself out the door!
    --
    Rainy "Collect all zero" Day
    [ Parent ]
    Hmm, anecdotal evidence makes weak point. (none / 0) (#271)
    by SuperSheep on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 01:20:18 PM EST

    Well my grandmother died at the age 80 from lung cancer caused by her smoking (the doctors didn't have any other explanation why her lungs resembled raisons). This was after getting pneumonia every other year and having her family worry about her dying constantly due to poor health. That said my anecdotal evidence beats your anecdotal evidence. Unfortunately my grandmother's case means about as much as yours - nothing. However, smoking will kill you plain and simple. There are more studies to back up smoking is bad than people know what to do with. That is not the question at hand. SHS is the question at hand.

    Ask yourself this though. What kind of life did your grandmother live up until her natural death? Was she well, or was she ill more often than she should have been? Did smoking slowly take her health instead of doing it all in one blow? Could she have pushed for 100 if she didn't smoke? I think those are more pressing questions.

    SuperSheep
    You only know what you know, everything else is hearsay.

    [ Parent ]

    Saying smoking *will* kill you... (3.00 / 1) (#291)
    by ragabr on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 04:08:50 PM EST

    is disingenuous and plain dumb. You'd think we'd know better here at k5. At present we all die and from a myriad of causes. There are tens of thousands of people in the world smoking and still alive. In fact, a huge amount of people living in Okinawa are lifelong smokers, Okinawa also happens to have the longest lifespan on average in the world.

    All smoking does, on our level of discussion, is increase the odds of getting certain cancers along with emphysema. It is no greater a death sentence than what we are born into the world with, and when longevity treatments do come on the market, I postulate that smoking will have negligable results on their effectiveness.

    -------
    And my tongue would be made of chocolate. Mmmmm. Chocolate.
    -rusty
    [ Parent ]
    she was free from smoking-related illness. (none / 0) (#435)
    by ph0rk on Tue Jul 30, 2002 at 08:16:33 PM EST


    As i said.  She ate poorly and drank too much.  She also had diabetes (by the way, i'd rather have a 1.5 pack a day smoking habit than diabetes.  at least you can quit smoking).

    Let me ask you where you originally learned that "smoking is bad", and from there, where did you go to verify the claims?
    [ f o r k . s c h i z o i d . c o m ]
    [ Parent ]

    What do we need to do to make you understand... (5.00 / 2) (#314)
    by Tezcatlipoca on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 08:00:41 PM EST

    .... simple statistics.

    One of my uncles abused his body in the same manner. He is dead of coronary desease, he died at the ripe age of 52.

    My father smoked all his life, he had a heart attack at 51, and then 10 years of misery.

    My mother and one of my brothers have all kind of allergies (doctors believe that cigarrette smoke weakened their immune system). One uncle that lived with us got respiratory problems due to 2nd hand smoking. He left the house and like magic the problems disapeared.

    Now, this is fscking anecdotal, and thus demonstrates nothing.

    That is why we have people that make fscking statistics,

    And that is why any serious insurance company will increase your premiums if you smoke: because they know smokers are a liability to their  business.
    ---
    "Every duck should aspire to be crispy and aromatic." sleepyhel

    [ Parent ]

    what statistics? (none / 0) (#434)
    by ph0rk on Tue Jul 30, 2002 at 08:10:56 PM EST


    the statistics are the very matter on discussion.
    you did read the article, right?  Or jump right to the trolling and cause-heading?

    come up with several (i.e. 5+) studies that aren't painfully biased, and CLEARLY show causational relationships between SHS and humans, or even FHS and humans, and we'll talk.

    oh, wait, you can't get causational data from the studies done, drats.
    [ f o r k . s c h i z o i d . c o m ]
    [ Parent ]

    Counter-"statistics" (none / 0) (#464)
    by Dragomire on Fri Aug 02, 2002 at 01:53:28 AM EST

    My grandmother is over 70 years old. She has smoked for over 50 of those years. My grandfather has lived with her for 55 years this June. His only health problems are his diabites (caused by being an alcoholic for much of his life), and high blood pressure. None of their children have suffered from any ill effects caused by SHS. My mother is her daughter.

    My mother is 53 years old. She has smoked since before I was born, so that points to at least 29 years. My father lived with her for 19 years before they divorced. He has no health problems related to SHS.

    Niether I, nor my borthers, are any worse for the wear because of SHS. In fact, we seem to be extremely healthy, and don't often even get colds or the flu. I'm even a really fast healer of cuts and bruises.

    Now, while your "statistics" show the direct correlation of SHS and diseases, my "statistics" show the exact opposite. Whose "statistics" are more right?

    [ Parent ]

    Is smoking really bad for you? (3.33 / 9) (#197)
    by Fantastic Lad on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 12:25:38 AM EST

    Okay. I don't smoke, and I have no desire to, but I actually have a problem with this whole "Tobacco=Evil" thing. --Be warned; this is conspiracy based.

    First off. . , anti-smoking gets a TON of press and promotion. Even the, "Let's go blow up Afghanistan!" charade didn't get the kind of promotion anti-smoking gets. Since I basically don't trust ANYTHING the government says, I have to wonder what might be really going on.

    Secondly. . , why do tobacco companies put so many extra ingredients into their cigarettes? I mean, they add a LOT of extra chemicals; In the European Union over 600 additives may be used in the manufacture of tobacco products under an extremely loose and de-centralised regulatory framework. Though 600 additives are authorized for use in tobacco products, only the tobacco manufacturers can say which additives are used and in which brands. Not even the Government or the European Commission, which are responsible for the regulation of tobacco products have this information or the power to demand it. Who looks at this? The whole question of additives in tobacco is an entirely side-stepped question. Tobacco, once pure in its original form, was the stuff from which the whole smoking 'thing' began. Why change the formula? What is to be gained?

    The answer to this is fairly reasonable; adding extra chemicals is done to improve the smoke taste, to increase the addictive qualities of nicotine, etc. (This is admitted to!) But what else?

    When cigarettes are tested for toxicity, they don't test pure tobacco; they test corporate tobacco. Why? --I mean, the surface answers are clear and reasonable. But still. . . Has anybody ever tested basic, unpolluted tobacco?

    Third. . . Sickness can be caused by belief. Rather like the reverse of the placebo effect, if people believe strongly enough that 'Smoke Causes Cancer', then it seems to me that all this propaganda surrounding smoking might in fact be having a negative health effect on those who already smoke on a regular basis. I'd say it was a certainty. What if tobacco smoke isn't really all that bad for you?

    Immediately, when I ask this, people seize up. "No! Smoke causes cancer!"

    Yeah? Where did you hear that? Really; think about it. Why does everybody believe this? Who told us, and what methods of information dissemination were used to send this message?

    Curious, no?

    So, I have to wonder. . . Why all this massive effort in making smoking look evil? Why make sure that when people do smoke, they really ARE ingesting additive chemicals which would never normally be included in pure tobacco, and which may themselves be carcinogens?

    What would the smoking of pure tobacco do to a person? What do they feel and think? What does it do to one's awareness?

    One thing is for certain; The way things are managed right now, nobody would know. Nobody but perhaps an indian on a reserve who grows his own.

    Just another little something to think about in the ten seconds before you toss away my icky thoughts in favor of the comfy programming.

    -Fantastic Lad

    Speaking as an ex-smoker... (4.75 / 4) (#210)
    by visigoth on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 02:51:44 AM EST

    I have to agree with your comments about tobacco additives, and also question the true source of the damage done.

    The original strains of tobacco, when discovered and brought back from the New World, were different in character from the much milder strains sold today, and in fact they were reputed to have rather strong hallucinogenic effects. I seriously doubt the original smokers did much inhaling, certainly not in the way cigarette smokers typically do. Inhaling a cigar or pipe tobacco in the same way is liable to make one ill. BTW the amount of nicotine in a typical cigar, from what I understand, is on the order of 100 mg, a potentially lethal dose if ingested or completely inhaled.

    So, much of the processing done to cigarette tobacco was done to make it more palatable to inhale, thereby making it more addictive, not to mention far more damaging to the lungs (I'm not implying this latter effect was intentional.) Not that cigars or pipe tobacco are harmless -- Sigmund Freud was a notorious cigar addict, to the tune of 20-30 every day and in fact had cancer of the mouth and throat later in life. His example is perhaps a bit extreme.

    A study on the effects of tobacco, to be fair and impartial, should examine all effects, including its benefits as claimed by smokers (relaxation, improved concentration) as well as health side-effects; furthermore, this study should extend back in history as far as any records are available. I agree that it would be highly interesting to know what the original tobaccos were like, and what the long term effects of using them were, covering the spectrum of occasional, moderate, and heavy use/abuse (case studies from those choosing this are preferable to research subjects, I think...) I've also read the tobacco plant has an affinity for radioactive elements that is measurable; I'd love to see studies to establish or disprove this, and identify whether, if it is indeed true, it's also a byproduct of selective breeding and hybridization by tobacco companies. Some claim this is a substantial source of the cancer risk.

    From experience, the so-called "100% natural tobacco" cigarettes didn't seem to help any, but this was likely due to the already substantial damage from 20+ years as a (heavy) smoker of "corporate tobacco" (I like that term), and after onset of persistent pneumonia I was forced to quit to regain my health, which is already much, much better, thank you very much.

    [ Parent ]

    Where did I hear about it? (4.00 / 2) (#226)
    by faecal on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 05:38:54 AM EST

    You take a large number of dogs, and muzzle them. Then, you put cigarettes in the muzzles of half of them. You analyse the statistics of which doggies get cancer, and there's your result. I didn't see that on tv, it was just part of my bioloy course.

    I believe this was the "Auerbach experiment". Pure and simply, there's no way this substance would have got through animal testing to be used for human consumption if it were introduced today.



    [ Parent ]

    Your point is? (3.00 / 2) (#242)
    by A Trickster Imp on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 07:56:16 AM EST

    You realize the same has been said of water, don't you?

    OSHA would have banned it because it's far too easy to fall into and drown.  FDA would regulate it because drinking too much can kill you -- a real possibility given the natural craving you have for it!  And then there's steam and ice, oh my god, you can get your tongue stuck to it, or burn it just on hot coffee.

    The FDA might actually be the biggest killer of the last century -- just a few years delay on a few drugs that cure some cancer or heart disease will easily overwhelm the life "savings" by delaying a few harmful drugs.

    But to the government, and elected politicians, a death in the hand due to a drug is worth a hundred thousand silent ones in the bush due to delayed or banned ones.

    [ Parent ]

    Why it's as simple as this: (3.33 / 3) (#275)
    by ShadeS on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 01:44:38 PM EST

    The Tobacco Industries are putting in extra 'secret' chemicals which alter your DNA. This alteration will make you immune to a type of chemical weapon they are working on. Once a certain amount of immunities are reached, they will release this toxin into the air. Killing off all those who don't smoke. There by leaving only smokers in the world. Then the companies will jack the price of their smoking products, because you will *die* if you don't have them, due to them releasing that chemical into the air every year.
    </Conspiracy_theory>

    -ShadeS

    [ Parent ]
    What about... (3.76 / 13) (#218)
    by Dephex Twin on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 03:54:03 AM EST

    Okay, some people here are saying that secondhand smoke may not be very harmful, and so non-smokers should learn to deal with the smoke.

    If you are smoking around me, I'd like to please be able to spit on you.  Multiple times, if I feel like it.  What's the problem?  It certainly won't kill you.  Sure, it's nasty and it lingers on your clothes, but so does smoke.  What's the difference?


    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson

    Amen to that (n/t) (none / 0) (#225)
    by faecal on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 05:31:30 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Excellent argument. Thanks. (n/t) (none / 0) (#235)
    by uXs on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 06:45:17 AM EST

    I said no text !

    --
    What our ancestors would really be thinking, if they were alive today, is: "Why is it so dark in here?" -- (Terry Pratchett, Pyramids)
    [ Parent ]
    ...who likes kissing an ashtray? (4.50 / 2) (#252)
    by deniz on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 09:23:44 AM EST

    That is honestly the reason one of my friends quit smoking, and is the reason I do not date smokers. I have some other friends who are considering quitting for the same reason.

    And it doesn't matter how much gum you chew to freshen up your breath. The stale smoke taste has a much longer half-life.

    [ Parent ]

    That only works... (1.00 / 1) (#287)
    by ragabr on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 03:59:31 PM EST

    if I'm directing smoke towards you. If you were to go around shooting a diffuse mist on everyone around you, I can't say that I would disagree with your analogy, but as it stands it's just not applicable.

    -------
    And my tongue would be made of chocolate. Mmmmm. Chocolate.
    -rusty
    [ Parent ]
    Way to miss the point. (3.50 / 2) (#331)
    by Dephex Twin on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 12:37:23 AM EST

    Maybe you were just kidding around which is fine.

    This analogy was actually too forgiving because it's a *lot* easier to clean off spit and move on.


    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
    [ Parent ]

    Except for... (none / 0) (#387)
    by ragabr on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 02:14:16 PM EST

    your spitting was malicious, directed and intentional, while smoke is not. Velly simple.

    -------
    And my tongue would be made of chocolate. Mmmmm. Chocolate.
    -rusty
    [ Parent ]
    How about (none / 0) (#388)
    by Dephex Twin on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 02:24:10 PM EST

    If I just spat in front of me whenever I had a nasty lougie.  If I hit you, understand that it is not intentional and I am trying to avoid hitting people.  Or let's just forget spitting directly on people then.  I think you'd be pretty damn annoyed when you'd occasionally put your hand or butt in a gob of spit.  Not intentional or directed.

    My point (the one that was missed) is not that this is not supposed to be an exact analogy where every aspect maps perfectly to smoking... rather that spit is something that does no harm, but might be equivalently revolting to you, so that you can better understand the frustration of smoke infesting public areas and clothing.


    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
    [ Parent ]

    Okay... (none / 0) (#411)
    by ragabr on Tue Jul 30, 2002 at 01:41:01 AM EST

    I might be annoyed by that, but I wouldn't be demanding laws against it. It's just a petty annoyance.

    -------
    And my tongue would be made of chocolate. Mmmmm. Chocolate.
    -rusty
    [ Parent ]
    Fine, you don't want to understand. (none / 0) (#416)
    by Dephex Twin on Tue Jul 30, 2002 at 10:21:16 AM EST

    Please pay attention to what I'm actually saying if you are going to bother to respond.


    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
    [ Parent ]
    Sure... (none / 0) (#436)
    by ragabr on Wed Jul 31, 2002 at 04:06:59 AM EST

    instead of you coming up with a reasonable analogy. Right.

    -------
    And my tongue would be made of chocolate. Mmmmm. Chocolate.
    -rusty
    [ Parent ]
    You don't understand how analogies are used (n/t) (none / 0) (#450)
    by Dephex Twin on Wed Jul 31, 2002 at 10:28:35 AM EST




    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
    [ Parent ]
    Of course I don't... (none / 0) (#454)
    by ragabr on Thu Aug 01, 2002 at 03:12:24 AM EST

    because I didn't see the light at your oh so insightful metaphor. Or it could be that your bias so obviously shined through that the analogy was flawed from the start.

    -------
    And my tongue would be made of chocolate. Mmmmm. Chocolate.
    -rusty
    [ Parent ]
    Not what I said. (none / 0) (#462)
    by Dephex Twin on Thu Aug 01, 2002 at 02:42:08 PM EST

    It's not that you said you disagreed, it's that each thing you pointed out about my analogy was totally irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

    I can't put it any more simply.  I already came right out and explained what I meant.


    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
    [ Parent ]

    I understood... (none / 0) (#463)
    by ragabr on Thu Aug 01, 2002 at 10:17:19 PM EST

    what you meant from the first. I pointed out the way you were trying to express that, while getting the point across, wasn't really applicable.

    -------
    And my tongue would be made of chocolate. Mmmmm. Chocolate.
    -rusty
    [ Parent ]
    The real problem (5.00 / 1) (#326)
    by omegadan on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 10:21:47 PM EST

    is, if it were really just every once in awhile it might be tolerable. But before the ban in california, EVERY time I went somewhere that allowed smoking there would be *someone* smoking. Which meant I wouldn't go to some place that allowed smoking ...

    I think the people who are most angry about smoking bans are the people who are absolutley can't live without a smoke for a minute because they are addicted. A few years ago when I was in a *horribly* difficult engineering course [accelerated course], the kind of course where you are swimming every second of your life ... and this dude would take off from class *15* minutes early every day to smoke ... which basically told me that he couldn't go the full 90 minutes of class *without* a cig!

    Religion is a gateway psychosis. - Dave Foley
    [ Parent ]

    Please explain (2.85 / 7) (#219)
    by Torka on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 04:05:55 AM EST

    What the anti-smoking lobby would have to gain in deliberately misrepresenting the facts.

    Well... (3.00 / 2) (#224)
    by faecal on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 05:30:49 AM EST

    Getting smoking banned in public places. Weren't you paying attention?

    The point is that the real reason some non-smokers oppose smoking in public places is simply that they don't like the smell.

    [ Parent ]

    Given the hostility (none / 0) (#382)
    by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 11:23:15 AM EST

    displayed on this board by some of the non-smokers who claim to object only to the smell of the smoke, I have no trouble believing they wouldn't over-hype things to make smoking look worse than it is.

    So, why should I believe them?


    --
    In anticipation, John licked his own lips.
    - A. Lloyd -


    [ Parent ]
    simple calculation (1.57 / 7) (#230)
    by StraGatto on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 05:59:49 AM EST

    In other words, every 5 days would give the non-smoker the effective nicotine levels of a single cigarette within their blood, according to the EPA's report. However, other studies have since come forth do dispute this. These studies, which actually monitor nicotine levels within the blood of non-smokers who work in smoky environments, say that the non-smoker gets the equivalent of 6 cigarettes per year, instead of 6 cigarettes every 30 days like the EPA suggested. No need to trust other people's studies: anybody can esteem that the amount of smoke drawn by an active smoker from a single cigarette is in the order of about 1000 cubic centimeters. Let's suppose now an active smoker and a non-smoker in a normally-sized room, that is about 5 x 4 x 3 meters. That volume, expressed in cubic centimeters, is 6E+10 cubic centimeters. So the average concentration in the room (from a single cigarette) will be 6E+10/1000 = 1/60,000,000 of the smoke inhaled by the active smoker. About the local concentration in a single point of the room, it decreases proportionally with the cube of the distance. This sounds much more like the results of non-EPA studies and throws another shadow on the earnestness of EPA. The uncontestable fact that the non-smoker can feel the smell of the smoke is only due to the sensitivity of the human olfact, that is comparable to the one of the most sensitive gas-chromatographic columns. So I don't smoke if in the same room there is somebody who dislikes the tobacco's smell. I ask always, but if anybody tells me pseudo-scientific arguments, I reply that I prefer to believe that simply he doesn't like the smell, because that is the only scientifically valid argument. I have read also that an EPA executive has PUBLICALLY admitted: "Yes, it's rotten science, but it's for a worth cause". I leave to your imagination where a such way of thinking can lead and what could be the consequences if it was applied in other matters.

    More to the point (3.00 / 2) (#240)
    by A Trickster Imp on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 07:51:12 AM EST

    More to the point, who cares how much nicotine gets in the blood.  I was under the impression that it was the tar and crap that gets into the lungs that was the cancer risk, not the nicotine, which was the addictive portion.

    Yes, in a "straw that broke the camel's back" sort of way, I suppose some SHS nonsmokers will get lung cancer, but these studies greatly exaggerate that.

    [ Parent ]

    Correction (5.00 / 3) (#255)
    by Eloquence on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 09:50:17 AM EST

    Don't believe everything you read. The "rotten science" quote is based on a commentary in Toxicologic Pathology by one Professor Alvin R. Feinstein. Therein he writes:

    I ask these questions because, in private conversation, I recently heard an authoritative leader in the world of public health epidemiology make the following statement: "Yes, it's rotten science, but it's in a worthy cause. It will help us get rid of cigarettes and become a smoke-free society."

    He doesn't qualify this statement further. You can find a copy of the article here. Unsurprisingly, Feinstein, who died in 2001, has received at least $700,000 in funding from the tobacco industry, according to FAIR.
    --
    Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy · Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
    spread the word!
    [ Parent ]

    Um, close but no well you know. (5.00 / 2) (#269)
    by SuperSheep on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 01:05:58 PM EST

    The thing is, is that you don't have to inhale that much for smoke to be harmful. The amount of smoke that actually gets deposited into the smoker's lungs is fairly small. A lot of it exits and gets put into the surrounding air, where it stays (assuming no wind as in the case of enclosed places). Over the course of the stay, the non-smoker is inhaling it. That person doesn't just inhale what is directly in his nose, but the stuff around his head and perhaps more than that even as the stuff settles (when it cools). Now the smoke is just part of the atmosphere. And as long as you can smell it, you're inhaling the nasties (I think it's pretty undisputable now that the stuff that results from burning a cigarette is nasty to your body). Actually I'd be willing to bet the nasty stuff stays even after you can stop smelling it (due to a human's poor sense of smell). However that is just suposition.

    SuperSheep
    You only know what you know; everything else is hearsay.

    [ Parent ]

    Pinhole Vision. (4.80 / 20) (#232)
    by ratdesang on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 06:14:52 AM EST

    Wonderful job quoting a single flawed study to push a case for something that couldn't be farther from the truth.

    The reality of it is that literally hundreds of studies have been published that support the fact that Passive Smoking/Second Hand Smoke/Indirect Smoke is damaging, and in some cases quite fatal. My brief search has turned up a few, lets go over them.

    Passive Smoking been linked to a decrease in coronary circulation in otherwise healthy adults4. This means the bloodflow in their heart decreased as a result of exposure to tobacco smoke. This could be symptomatic of an increased risk for atherogensis. A second, and more comprehensive study has independently confirmed this result3.

    Second Hand Smoke has indeed been linked to an increased occurance of asthma in children5,6,7. Moreso, if the child already suffers from asthma, the presence of tobacco smoke may exacerbate the condition.2 Interestingly enough, that study relies heavily on the testing of cotinine(a metabolite of nicotine) to verify exposure.

    Lastly, a large group of Taiwanese researchers noticed that the huge discrepcency between the low rate of smoking among women and the high rate of lung cancer can be readily explained by second hand smoke.1

    In the end, this is an Op-Ed peice, and you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. Just remember that that is exactly what it is - Your opinion, and empirical does not support that view.



    Warning: Some of these links may require a paid account with the New England Journal of Medicine.
    1Lifetime environmental exposure to tobacco smoke and primary lung cancer of non-smoking Taiwanese women
    2Association between Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Exacerbations of Asthma in Children
    3Passive Smoking and Impaired Endothelium-Dependent Arterial Dilatation in Healthy Young Adults
    4Acute Effects of Passive Smoking on the Coronary Circulation in Healthy Young Adults
    5 The impact of passive smoking on emergency room visits of urban children with asthma.
    6Persistent wheeze. Its relation to respiratory illness, cigarette smoking, and level of pulmonary function in a population sample of children
    7Maternal smoking and childhood asthma


    Good work. Effectively silenced them. :) NT (none / 0) (#359)
    by Shovas on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 12:48:17 AM EST


    ---
    Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
    ---
    Disagree? Post. Don't mod.
    [ Parent ]
    Empirical Evidence? Pretty soft... (5.00 / 1) (#405)
    by AngryToad on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 09:15:39 PM EST

    Well, I had a look at the study on the Taiwanese women. As is typical with most ETS studies they do their damndest to find a link between ETS and cancer because we all know there must be one (okay, I'm being unkind there - it is a well-constructed study).

    Just to cite some of their results: take a good look at Table 3 - in every case but four the 95% CI on the Odds Ratio includes 1 (no effect). For childhood exposure, there is an ever so slightly increased risk from your father smoking in your presence (but not your mother, oddly). The best evidence for a significant impact comes from having a husband smoking in your presence for more than twenty years (between 1.5 and 4.2 times more likely) or more than fourty years (between 1.7 and 6.2 times more likely). Now that's a pretty good set of numbers, I'll grant.

    Workplace exposure - once again we're somewhere between 0.5 (meaning you're more likely to get cancer if you are NOT exposed to workplace smoke) and 2.4 times increased risk if you're exposed to workplace ETS.

    Herein lies my real problem with this issue - you'd have to be a pretty dedicated antismoking fanatic to claim that these are strong numbers (except in the case of the long-term smoking husband, which doesn't seem like a big surprise). For the most part the effect, if there is any, just barely rises above the background noise. We're not talking about 3 or 4 standard deviations above the mean here, we're talking about something which is at best a relatively minor risk compared to the vast number of truly significant risks out there. This issue is innumeracy personified, and often by people who really should know better. These certainly aren't numbers upon which significant public policy decisions should be made.

    Smoking is disasterous to the smoker's health, nobody is denying that. ETS? Find me a study where the numbers are striking, just one.



    [ Parent ]
    More recent studies & children's rights (4.30 / 13) (#233)
    by johnny on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 06:18:17 AM EST

    For example, here show pretty conclusively that SHS is a signficant health hazard to others.

    My larger concern is what SHS does to children who grow up with it. I do not have an answer to the problem of this kind of child abuse. The question is too vexing. But hundreds of thousands of children sufffer life-long ill health because of forced exposure to second hand smoke. So although I do not have a solution to the problem I can at least state that anybody who exposes children to second hand smoke is either ignorant or guilty of criminal narcissism at the least. I believe that the analogies made by other posters between smoking and spitting is apt. You smoke on me, I spit on you. OK? You smoke on my children, you see what happens, OK?

    I have argued elsewhere on K5 for the legalization of drugs. I believe that you should be able to put into your own body whatever you feel like putting into your own body. However I think many restrictions on public smoking are perfectly reasonable. I have also argued for keeping cats indoors, for the health of non-owners. In all cases I argue for modest restrictions on freedoms in exchange for large health benefits to children.

    I find the more strenuous pro-freeedom-to-smoke arguments to be so inane, so founded on asshole narcissim, so contemptous of children and people with illness that I generally don't think they're worthy of a direct response. For you can't reason with an asshole narcissisist, and furthermore it's reasonable to assume that many of the comments (& perhaps this initial story?) are astroturf.

    I used to smoke a lot of pipe tobacco. I really enjoyed it but stopped because I thought it was dangerous. I still smoke cigars from time to time. I also go to smokey bars sometimes to listen to music. I don't really mind it, but I hate the stench in my clothes the next morning.

    yr frn,
    jrs
    Get your free download of prizewinning novels Acts of the Apostles and Cheap Complex Devices.

    Pot Pourri (2.85 / 7) (#239)
    by A Trickster Imp on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 07:48:00 AM EST

    Restrictions on public smoking have nothing to do with dangers to children.  The SHS dangers to children, if they exist, will 99.99% be in the home of their smoking parents.

    Secondly, I always felt it was particularly nasty of nonsmokers to get smoking banned in restaraunts and other PRIVATE establishments.

    If a restaraunt owner wants to permit smoking, it is their decision and theirs alone.  You have no right to demand they do what you want with their property. If YOU don't like the smoke, then YOU don't have to eat there -- punish them by voting with your dollars, instead of the state's pointed gun.

    People here whine about America in decline.  You wanna know why America is in decline (you say it, not me)?  It's issues like this and their state-sponsored "solutions" x 1000 issues-of-the-moment, with more added every week.

    Can't you people just leave other people who want to be left alone, alone?

    [ Parent ]

    ....ok (3.83 / 6) (#277)
    by AmberEyes on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 02:40:29 PM EST

    Can't you people just leave other people who want to be left alone, alone?

    Take your own advice, and don't smoke around me, so I don't cough and stink and die.

    I'm fine with you smoking in your home. But if you want me to leave you alone, then you leave me alone.

    -AmberEyes


    "But you [AmberEyes] have never admitted defeat your entire life, so why should you start now. It seems the only perfect human being since Jesus Christ himself is in our presence." -my Uncle Dean
    [ Parent ]
    Okay... (3.00 / 3) (#285)
    by ragabr on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 03:54:14 PM EST

    but that restaraunt, it's a guy's who wants people to be able to smoke there. So the burden is on you not to come if you don't want to be exposed. And public areas, it's just as much mine as it is yours. Really, all you statement can really say is "don't smoke in my house or car."

    -------
    And my tongue would be made of chocolate. Mmmmm. Chocolate.
    -rusty
    [ Parent ]
    That's cool (none / 0) (#427)
    by spiralx on Tue Jul 30, 2002 at 06:01:17 PM EST

    Just come and ask politely, and I'm happy to clear the area or kill my cigarette.

    You're doomed, I'm doomed, we're all doomed for ice cream. - Bob Aboey
    [ Parent ]

    Bullshit. (3.50 / 2) (#308)
    by Tezcatlipoca on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 07:41:50 PM EST

    In a situation in which two individuals are not injuring each other, the one that starts the agression is the one that should stop it.

    The smoker is the initial agressor, they are the ones that should leave the rest of the public alone.
    ---
    "Every duck should aspire to be crispy and aromatic." sleepyhel

    [ Parent ]

    Ok. (3.00 / 2) (#327)
    by kuro5hinatportkardotnet on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 11:30:52 PM EST

    and while we are at it we should dismantle the whole system of food safety and health department inspections. And why not remove those pesky OSHA regulations that require certain safety rules to be in place? I mean hell they own the place and should be able to make it as safe or unsafe as they like right?

     

    Libertarian is the label used by embarrassed Republicans that long to be open about their greed, drug use and porn collections.
    [ Parent ]
    Same objection... (3.33 / 3) (#270)
    by Irobot on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 01:18:06 PM EST

    From what I see, the report can be called into question for the reasons pointed out in the K5 article. (Disclaimer: I didn't read through the whole site; perhaps they do provide their methodology and other counterpoints. I didn't see it.) To wit, from the International Agency for Research on Cancer's monograph (part 2) linked to by the BBC article:
    To evaluate the information collectively, in particular from those studies with a limited number of cases, meta-analyses have been conducted in which the relative risk estimates from the individual studies are pooled together. These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes....Furthermore, other published meta-analyses of lung cancer in never smokers exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke at the workplace have found a statistically significant increased risk of 16 to 19 per cent. This evidence is sufficient to conclude that involuntary smoking is a cause of lung cancer in never smokers. The magnitudes of the observed risks are reasonably consistent with predictions based on studies of active smoking in many populations....

    A mixture of 89% sidestream smoke and 11% mainstream smoke has been tested for carcinogenic activity in mouse strains that are highly susceptible to lung tumours (strains A/J and Swiss). In strain A/J mice, this mixture consistently produces a significant, modest increase in lung tumour incidence and lung tumour multiplicity...

    In the first quoted paragraph, they talk about "constant" exposure - spouses of smokers and people who work in a smoky environment, which is certainly one way to skew the claim SHS is a significant health risk for non-smokers. In the second paragraph, they use mice that are highly susceptible to lung tumours. They also say the effect is significant, but modest. A nice line I heard in a discussion of sweetener studies may apply - "If you stick 5 pounds of anything up a rat's ass daily, yeah - it'll probably cause cancer." (Note: I couldn't find an adequate definition of "sidestream smoke;" SHS is in another category referred to as "involuntary smoke.")

    It's not that I think that SHS is "not bad," nor that it's impossible to prove it to be a significant health risk. I'm just making the same point as the K5 article - this monograph may be biased also.

    Irobot

    The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
    [ Parent ]

    Side-stream smoke... (5.00 / 1) (#284)
    by ragabr on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 03:51:36 PM EST

    also called "slip-stream smoke" is smoke that comes directly off the tip of the cigarette, not passing through the body of it, filter or the smoker.

    -------
    And my tongue would be made of chocolate. Mmmmm. Chocolate.
    -rusty
    [ Parent ]
    Thank you for clarifying (n/t) (none / 0) (#286)
    by Irobot on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 03:54:34 PM EST


    Irobot

    The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
    [ Parent ]

    Stinky arguments (2.50 / 8) (#237)
    by Obsequious Rat on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 07:08:46 AM EST

    A lot of the anti-smoking posters below are arguing that smoking bans are a good thing because cigarette smoke stinks. A pro-smoking poster (or at least someone neutral) counters with something along the lines of "Yeah, well, then I should be able to ban people who don't bathe because they are just as offensive to me."

    This response leaves a lot to be desired, mostly because human beings stink by default. We are one of the smelliest species on Earth. (I like to think that the reason our sense of smell is so undeveloped (as compared to most other mammals) is in response to the fact that we stink so bad -- even if our sense of smell were better, we probably wouldn't notice the difference over our own stench.) Because human beings stink by default, banning people who don't bathe is something akin to banning people who don't have tans -- you would be forcing people to conform to an arbitrary and artificial state.

    Regular (daily) bathing is a relatively modern development, thanks in large part to the inexpensive abundance of indoor plumbing. (While he was growing up during the Great Depression, less than 80 years ago, my father would take a bath no more than once a week.) In places where such modern conveniences do not exist, you can pretty much bet that the people there stink, at least by "Western" standards, unless things like perfumes or other scent-maskers are common. (You know, that's the problem with perfume, it just masks your stink: you still stink, but the perfume has a stronger scent. If you get close enough to someone wearing perfume, you can usually get a whiff of their natural B.O. Deodorants and anti-perspirants, in contrast, attempt to stop the bacteria that cause the stink in the first place, but these solutions to the stinky-by-default problem are even more recent innovations.)

    Okay, so, how does this relate to smoking? It doesn't. Ignoring issues of addiction -- which I admit are pretty big issues -- smoking is a voluntary act. That is, people do not smoke by default. (They may be prone to the occasional spontaneous combustion, but that's a different story.) I can voluntarily choose not to stink, but making that choice requires an active effort on my part to move beyond my default condition, just like the choice to smoke.

    Furthermore, it is fairly easy to write a law that prevents people from doing a particular voluntary activity. It is much more difficult to require such an activity. So, I can pass laws regulating voluntary activities that stink, such as wearing perfume, or automobile exhaust, or smoking; but it seems all-but-impossible to legislate mandatory activities to overcome the involuntary, default stink of something, be it human beings or the chemical sulfur (i.e., you can't legislate away the fact that sulfur stinks).

    Note: you could apply similar reasoning towards the "then-let's-ban-fat-people" comments. I merely chose the "people-who-don't-bathe" comment out of convenience. While there certainly are some people who should probably stop eating so much, there are many folks considered obese who have legitimate medical issues like the classic "glandular problem" that leave them fat as their default condition.

    For the record, O.R. showers at least once a day, and frequently twice.



    "No doubt about it... the chimps gave 110%."
    requiring activity (5.00 / 1) (#376)
    by Phelan on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 10:27:07 AM EST

    Furthermore, it is fairly easy to write a law that prevents people from doing a particular voluntary activity. It is much more difficult to require such an activity.

    I'm not so sure about this argument. Nudity is humanity's 'natural' state. Most every State in the US (and most every country to boot) has laws concerning public exposure and indecency. Many states (if not all) have laws requiring automobile drivers and passengers to wear seat belts. And how about those compulsory school attendance laws? Payment of taxes? Seems like a required behavior. Nearly all traffic laws are laws requiring certrain behavior...you should watch some old films that show how much anarchy was on the roads before such laws came into being. How about during a drought, when the county or city can enforce strict water regulations, with the force of law? And I'm just talking about laws I might find in states in the US..certain other countries may be more draconian. In fact, I read once that Japan did indeed have a body odor law. You could be fined for stinking on a commuter train, because of the population pressure. I couldn't find a reference to it on Google, but it seems plausible enough.

    Seems to me that most laws are of 2 types..one that prohibits a certain behaviors, and another that requires a certain behavior. Your argument (essentially "we can't make people do stuff very easily") is fairly specious.

    [ Parent ]

    Jut a few more comments (3.43 / 16) (#253)
    by thogard on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 09:33:10 AM EST

    I was considered a sever asthmatic till I reached about the age 14.  My mother smoked.  My parents moved around a bit and in the one house that my mother had never smoked in,  only had one problem in a year compared to a normal of about 20 to 50 times a year.  I'm alergic to some of the junk thats added  to tabacco and when I'm exposed to even small amoutns of it, I can feel the mucus forming in my lungs.  It also effects my upper sinuses and that causes small postules of mucus that surround the particles that come off other peoples cigarettes.  This stuff tends to stay in the back of my throat and sometimes starts rotting.   I'm sure its quite pleasent to be around me when this is happening.

    Smoking annoys me if the smoker is 500 yards away and the wind is at anything less than a 30 degree angle.    The shit stinks people!  There are some brands I can identify by people smoking in cars aheard of me on the highway (at highway speeds).

    I spent alot of time in hostpitals as a small kid.  By the time I was 8 several of my friends (that I had meet in the hostpital) had already died of smoking related illnesses.   This kind of thing can create some stick at twisted bastards.  The medical treatments of the day involved a number of drugs that came out of a german research for mind control.  The most comon inhaler today is a better version of the same thing that was driving people nuts in the late 1940's.    When I found out that caffeine worked beter than ventolin I  swicthed to that with fewer side effects.

    If you smoke where any smoke and affect any other person, you should be subject to the full force of the assult law if it bothers them.

    At some point in the very near future, the children of smokers are going to start going after the tabbaco compaines and they won't be able to aford that.

    Don't assult me because your a drug addict.

    Oh please. (2.35 / 14) (#292)
    by kitten on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 04:15:16 PM EST

    Smoking annoys me if the smoker is 500 yards away and the wind is at anything less than a 30 degree angle.

    Oh-kay, can we please throw in some more exaggerated hyperbole? Thanks.

    There are some brands I can identify by people smoking in cars aheard of me on the highway (at highway speeds).

    Wow, you're a regular bloodhound, aren't you? Why don't you go hire yourself out to the FBI to detect the scent of wanted criminals?

    If you smoke where any smoke and affect any other person, you should be subject to the full force of the assult law if it bothers them.

    Shut the fuck up and quit your high-and-mighty whining. You know, I don't like country music - in fact, most of it irritates me in a way I can't even begin to describe. Do I accuse the guy in the car next to me of "assault" if he's listening to Garth Brooks?
    Using the word 'assault' this way is one of the most asinine things I've ever heard of. Spare me the rhetoric.

    Meanwhile, I'm sorry you're so annoyed by cigarette smoke, but you can drop the pretense of health problems. You breathe in more toxic crap every day of your life just by virtue of living in an industrialized society.

    At some point in the very near future, the children of smokers are going to start going after the tabbaco compaines and they won't be able to aford that.

    What's your point, other than "WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

    Don't assult me because your a drug addict.

    Oh, that's rich. I'll make sure to put that in my case against the guy who listens to loud country music in his car: "Don't assault me because you're a country music fan!"


    mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
    [ Parent ]
    I don't think you read that properly (5.00 / 2) (#297)
    by Wouter Coene on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 04:37:04 PM EST

    thogard is describing his medical problems caused by other people smoking nearby. This has nothing to do with annoyance whatsoever, it's something caused by his body being rather sensitive to tar in his lungs.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah? (2.88 / 9) (#323)
    by kitten on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 09:26:41 PM EST

    ..so what? I'm sorry he's hypersensitive to cigarette smoke - he and a very, very small percentage of the population - but is that really reason to be slinging words like "assault" and insisting that all smokers are evil demons hellbent on his personal destruction, and that it should be illegal?

    Some people are overly sensitive to various substances. I'm sure it sucks, but too bad for them. That's life. Me, I'm really sensitive to the smell of certain colognes and perfumes. I literally gag involuntarily when I get too close to someone wearing them. It's horrible.

    But I freaking deal with it.

    To 99% of the nonsmoking population, cigarette smoke is, at the very most, an annoyance. You can always find one or two people who are ultra sensitive to this or that substance - that is not grounds for incoherent and vicious ravings like we're seeing here.
    mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
    [ Parent ]
    c'mon now.. (4.00 / 1) (#406)
    by mediapunk on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 09:17:42 PM EST

    If you're 500 yds away and still have a problem with my smoking, it's YOUR FUCKING PROBLEM.

    If the exhaust from the car in front of you is tolerable, but the smokers inside are bothersome, then you're just straight-up WHACKED y0 ..

    no offense, but seriously...

    [ Parent ]

    Why persecute Big Tobacco? (2.22 / 9) (#256)
    by erp6502 on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 09:53:54 AM EST

    I've never understood the furor (in the US) over additives in tobacco and aggressive smoking campaigns. In my perfect dystopia, the tobacco industry would be completely deregulated and medical benefits denied to habitual smokers.

    One tobacco additive should be a temperature-activated chemical marker which would taken up by the smoker's tissues but inactive in cooler SHS. This would be an almost indisputable indicator of a plaintiff's status as a smoker.

    As for deregulation of additives? The more toxic, the better. Side benefit: SHS in the home removes unfit offspring from the gene pool.

    Have a happy future! be

    yes (3.00 / 2) (#317)
    by cockroach on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 08:11:39 PM EST

    ... medical benefits denied to habitual smokers

    yes, and to habitual car drivers, firemen and police officers as well...


    --
    Webisoder - never miss another TV episode
    [ Parent ]
    Ottawa as an example (3.83 / 6) (#260)
    by canwaf on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 10:52:37 AM EST

    Ottawa Ontario has a complete ban from smoking in all publicly owned places, and all workplaces. That means no smoking from Nortel to a Bar to a bingo hall - any place where people work. Many people have voiced thier opinions on this ban, be it "keep it" or "junk it".

    There are three restaurant in the east end that will not comply with the non-smoking by-law, they are continually fined for noncomplyance.

    When the by-law was passed, and a date set. Most restraunts claimed that they'll lose a very large portion of thier clientel due to the smoking bands. They said that the ban would force them out of buisness. No restraunt has gone out of business due to the smoking ban. there has been a few restraunts that have gone out of buisness since the ban, but they were 100% smoke free restraunts in the first place.

    Now, from first hand experience, MORE people are going to restraunts, and MORE people are spending MORE. This smoking ban has been good for restraunts as a whole.

    On a personal note about smoking,
    My grandfather recently died from smoking, his lungs turned to mush, and he melted away before his entire family's eyes. Honestly, is that worth the "feel good" feeling of breathing smoke into your lungs?
    Yes, it's your decision to poison yourself, but it should be my decision NOT to pay taxes for people who choose to do so. In the US, this claim may not not be affective, because you pay for your own health care, but in Canada, I pay for my peer's healthcare.

    And, finaly, yes, I am bias, I saw my grandfather suffer before he died. Then again, who hasn't been affected in similar ways to a death from smoking?

    The cost of smokers (4.00 / 3) (#262)
    by kvan on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 11:14:45 AM EST

    Yes, it's your decision to poison yourself, but it should be my decision NOT to pay taxes for people who choose to do so. In the US, this claim may not not be affective, because you pay for your own health care, but in Canada, I pay for my peer's healthcare.
    I don't know about Canadian sin taxes, but here in Denmark they did a study a few years back. Turned out that the taxes smokers pay on tobacco more than pay for their treatment. A pack of cigarettes costs about USD 4.5 here.

    "Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, most do." - Bertrand Russell


    [ Parent ]
    Risky behaviour and socialism (3.50 / 4) (#263)
    by darthaggie on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 11:41:40 AM EST

    Yes, it's your decision to poison yourself, but it should be my decision NOT to pay taxes for people who choose to do so.

    Ah, here's the rub of socialism: you're not free to do what you want if it might harm you because someone else will have to pay for your health care. I'm kind of surprised they haven't banned motorcycles...

    Out of curiousity, do you happen to engage in any risky hobbies? if so, how would you feel if your government decided to ban that activity, say rock climbing, because you might be seriously injured and become a burden on the social net?

    I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.
    [ Parent ]

    Not the same (none / 0) (#361)
    by slockhar on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 02:48:36 AM EST

    I suspect that most thrill-seeker types are generally in better physical condition than most of the populace and therefore are a lower burden on the whole.

    Besides which, there are measured benefits to exercise, whereas it would be tough to find any with cigarette smoking.

    It would be interesting to see a comparison of the cost and frequency of treating smoking-induced cancer versus that of a motorcycle, rock-climbing, etc., injury.

    [ Parent ]

    Tax exercise and healthy living (4.00 / 1) (#367)
    by zakalwe on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 06:58:47 AM EST

    I suspect that most thrill-seeker types are generally in better physical condition than most of the populace and therefore are a lower burden on the whole.

    Actually this overlooks the (admittedly counterintuitive) point that its those in better physical health that are the most expensive in terms of healthcare.  A guy who smokes, eats fatty food and doesn't exercise who dies around 50, possibly requiring expensive cancer / heart disease treatments at the time will still cost less than a health nut who lives completely without injury, till they reach 70 or 80 and then require the usual run of hip replacements, regular hospital visits and other problems resulting from old age that they'll require over those extra years that they live, plus the expense of treatment of whatever ends up killing them.  (Not even mentioning pensions and other expenses that a socialist government will provide to the elderly.)

    Rock climbers / dangerous sports are probably the best of both worlds because the participants may require less care thanks to their good health, but at the same time are also likely to have a fatal accident, cutting out all old-age care.

    What would really be interesting is to see the health expenses borne by an individual over the complete course of their lives depending on whether they smoke / drink / overeat etc.


    [ Parent ]

    yes, great (1.00 / 1) (#316)
    by cockroach on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 08:07:00 PM EST

    Maybe banning white light bulbs wouldn't stop people from going to restaurants either. Maybe, as population increases, even more people might go there. Still it would be fucking idiocy...
    --
    Webisoder - never miss another TV episode
    [ Parent ]
    Re: yes, great (none / 0) (#352)
    by canwaf on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 12:32:58 PM EST

    Of course Ottawa is growing... quite quickly too... and the number of restraunts is growing too...
    I'm not saying...

    Before the ban on smoking 6000 people went to a dine in restraunt a week.
    After the ban on smoking 9000 people went to a dine in restraunt a week.

    The above is very misleading, because the "after" number could be a year or two later... when the population could of grown by 10000.

    I mean that a larger section of the population of the city is eating in restraunts than before the ban... and this takes care of population growth.

    [ Parent ]
    Correlation != causation (4.00 / 7) (#261)
    by GuruWannabe on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 10:57:17 AM EST

    It seems to me that the fallacy that correlation implies causation has been institutionalized. If A corresponds to an increased amount of B, then A causes B, period, end of story, and anyone who questions that must be on the payroll of people who produce A. Also, the anti-smoking posts that mention studies all seem to miss the point about relative risk, as well as the point that the flawed EPA study has been used as a basis for many other studies. What's also missing here is mention of property rights. You have the right to smoke on your own property. You have the right to smoke on someone else's property only if the owner agrees to it. If that's not the case, then we don't have property rights any more. I haven't mentioned what should happen on public property because there's no correct answer to that question.

    Self-appointed moral busybodies (3.25 / 12) (#264)
    by darthaggie on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 11:48:17 AM EST

    You're surprised by this? there's always been junk science, and always will be. Beware of the moral busybodies!

    Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
    -- C. S. Lewis (1898-1963)

    I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated.

    CS Lewis quote (O/T) (5.00 / 2) (#289)
    by Irobot on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 04:00:03 PM EST

    Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
    -- C. S. Lewis (1898-1963)
    Interesting quote. Having read nothing of Lewis's work other than the Narnia Chronicles and a bit of The Screwtape Letters, I was wondering if you know off hand what his opinion of evangelism was?

    Irobot

    The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
    [ Parent ]

    Quote... (none / 0) (#358)
    by Shovas on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 12:45:51 AM EST

    Agreed. Nifty quote. I didn't know CS Lewis said that. Were you thinking, though, that CS Lewis would be against evangelism because the quotation seemingly puts a negative light on people with supposed higher ideals in positions of authority? I think that misses the point. If I may presume to assume I have adequate knowledge of Mr. Lewis, I'd think he'd support evangelism in the true, sincere vein of the act. Hypocrisy he would not stand for, but honest actions in the genuine name of the Lord he would support I think.

    CS Lewis surprises me more and more with his great, cold reasoning.
    ---
    Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
    ---
    Disagree? Post. Don't mod.
    [ Parent ]
    Specifically (none / 0) (#375)
    by Irobot on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 09:59:37 AM EST

    I was thinking of the evangelism that took place in Hawai'i after Captain Cook "discovered" the islands. Talk about an imposition of morals - what took place was a travesty and the Hawaiian culture is still struggling today. (Did you know that Hawaiian was on the verge of being a dead language? I believe mostly due to the fact that the missionaries did not allow the people to use their mother tongue. To say nothing of the fact that the missionaries used their position of power for huge personal (monetary) gain.) Of course, one could also cite the Portugese situation in Japan during the 1800s (is that the right time period?) or the "invasion" of missionaries in various African countries.

    I'm not sure I see any distinction between "evangelism in the true, sincere vein of the act" and its opposite. What I mean is, evangelism, in any form, inherently has a large element of "moral busybody." To deny that would be to make the claim that a given religion either has no moral code or that it is not concerned with looking after its converts' "morality." And even that assumes it can be separated from other aspects of the people doing the evangelizing - for instance, the collusion of Portugese traders and the Jesuits in Japan or the sugar plantations in Hawai'i.

    Since I respect CS Lewis's thinking - even if I don't agree with it - I was wondering if his writings could inform me of a better view/definition of evangelism or whether he just had a tremendous blind-spot, which seems to be the case for every evangelist I've ever encountered.

    Irobot

    The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
    [ Parent ]

    There's an important point to keep in mind (none / 0) (#396)
    by Shovas on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 04:02:54 PM EST

    I'm not sure I see any distinction between "evangelism in the true, sincere vein of the act" and its opposite. What I mean is, evangelism, in any form, inherently has a large element of "moral busybody." To deny that would be to make the claim that a given religion either has no moral code or that it is not concerned with looking after its converts' "morality."
    You may not see any distinction, but in the pure, technical sense of investigation, there is an inherent difference. Christianity does not teach overlording, oppression, and whatever other negative effects some stories of missions may surface because of their controversial content. It is exactly the same case as the Crusades. Religion did not cause the Crusades, the corrupt leaders who were not following their own teachings were the cause.

    So, I say it's important to keep in mind that the way some missions have been executed are not the complete and utter blueprint for all missions. Many, many more missions are left unsung in the mainstream simply because they turned out great, but with no provocative overtones which would make it palletable to the media and masses.

    As for how evangelism should be done, as opposed to how it was perhaps managed in the Hawaiian situation, I concur there are better ways to go about spreading the gospel than some of the ways which have been done. Non-invasive, deep immersion into the culture you are trying to reach seems to be the most recent trend providing positive results.

    All the same, I suppose I haven't dealt with your real question which is what Lewis perceives as agreeable evangelism, or lack thereof.
    ---
    Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
    ---
    Disagree? Post. Don't mod.
    [ Parent ]
    I'm still not getting it (none / 0) (#399)
    by Irobot on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 05:35:37 PM EST

    You may not see any distinction, but in the pure, technical sense of investigation, there is an inherent difference. Christianity does not teach overlording, oppression, and whatever other negative effects some stories of missions may surface because of their controversial content. It is exactly the same case as the Crusades. Religion did not cause the Crusades, the corrupt leaders who were not following their own teachings were the cause.
    I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I'm still not clear on the "inherent difference." Although I was specifically thinking of the disastorous effects of corrupt evangelism such as that that took place in Hawai'i, let's drop the unproductive extreme cases and try to get back to Lewis's point about "moral busybodies." You say that "Non-invasive, deep immersion into the culture you are trying to reach seems to be the most recent trend providing positive results." And it seems to me that one cannot evangelize without being invasive. To do so makes the act ineffective and sterile.

    Personally, I think evangelists have been the root of a lot of evil throughout history. I think it is a horrible practice, both in ideology and in actual application. Evangelical christianity does teach oppression and overlording; it's the nature of proselytizing any moral code. Perhaps the one notable "sect" that doesn't would be the Quakers - but I've never heard of Quaker evangelists.

    Note that I'm not trying to slam christianity here; one could make the point about Islamic conquerors who allowed non-Islamic believers to practice their religion but required them to "pay tribute" (I'm fuzzy right now on terms; a nap does that to me sometimes). I'm guessing there's similar things in the Buddhist and Hindu religions. I'm really attempting to see where this view is wrong.

    Irobot

    The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
    [ Parent ]

    Depends on how you're thinking of it (none / 0) (#400)
    by Shovas on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 06:44:58 PM EST

    There's evangelizing, and there's the life as the result of the converted, in the case of successful evangelization. From what I gather, you are including the resultant lifestyle which may have been changed as a result of a "conversion" and assuming the changes are a loss against the original cultural lifestyle of the individual. The converted individual, themself, may not agree with that, though. From an outsider's perspective, the loss of some culture-specific ideal as, to be fecetious, say, coming-of-age castration may look like a potential extinction of a way of life for one civilization. Certainly, it is something which may never return, but who are you or I to judge one aspect of life unalienable. And this is all under the pretense of "good" missions. Speaking of good/bad missions, one example I've heard of recently is in India where at least one organization no longer sends missionaries strictly as missionaries. They have begun going as business persons or other common workers in society, with that as their primary entry method, while missions is their primary goal. They do not, however, solely work as missionaries. They start businesses such as internet cafes or they work as employees for companies were expertise is needed. Through these means, they are given opportunity to witness and spread the gospel as they wish. It is certainly not invasive, though, not in the negative ways brought up here, at the very least. They work in a very intelligent and forward-thinking mode, knowing that straight evangelism may not work anymore. As a side-effect, these people are given more credence to their word because those in the area respect them for their business dealings and see them as official persons with real positions on the social ladder. That is what I meant by non-invasive methods. As opposed to going in and forcing certain mores and norms to become be lost, they go in gently, explain their purpose and convert the willing. This is what I believe is the sincere manner of evangelism. So if you see the ideals of Christianity being invasive on the native culture, I would wholely agree with you. Evangelism, itself, however definitely does not have to be intrusionary.
    ---
    Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
    ---
    Disagree? Post. Don't mod.
    [ Parent ]
    Argh should've previewed NT (none / 0) (#401)
    by Shovas on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 06:45:51 PM EST


    ---
    Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
    ---
    Disagree? Post. Don't mod.
    [ Parent ]
    Ah, that's a good one (none / 0) (#402)
    by Irobot on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 07:56:54 PM EST

    They have begun going as business persons or other common workers in society, with that as their primary entry method, while missions is their primary goal. They do not, however, solely work as missionaries.
    This has been plaguing me all afternoon - I felt that I was holding onto a narrow view, but wasn't seeing the way around it. (Perhaps a curse of incomplete historical knowledge?) And then an example hit me - Hari Krishnas. They're most certainly evangelizing; in fact, often in an intrusive manner. But they certainly don't force their morality on others. "Here's a copy of the Bagavad Gita. Come join us for dinner on Thursday nights." Accept it or not, your choice.

    Thanks for pursuing this with me...sorry for being so dense on this one.

    Irobot

    The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
    [ Parent ]

    Ya, there ya go NT (none / 0) (#404)
    by Shovas on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 09:09:01 PM EST


    ---
    Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
    ---
    Disagree? Post. Don't mod.
    [ Parent ]
    I did a speech on these subject once (4.40 / 15) (#268)
    by Sheepdot on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 12:46:32 PM EST

    Secondhand smoke has been blamed for asthma, SIDS, certain types of skin cancer (don't ask), and general annoyances.

    Restaurants have been forced to remove smoking sections, including truck stops which thrive on a steady stream of smokers.

    From all the research I did into the EPA report and subsequent judge ruling in 98 I found that while the whole thing was just another case of junk science there was a clear number of "additional studies" that were funded by the Tobbacco Institute or Big Tobacco. Basically, since 1995 or so no study on Second-Hand smoke has been done without financial backing from either Big Tobacco or Big Pharma.

    You want to hear some real horror stories, you should see studies regarding some of these miracle drugs that are supposed to help you quit smoking. I ended up just going cold turkey and it worked out great.

    My biggest problem with the secondhand smoke argument is the way that anti-smokers (not non-smokers) jump on the cancer kick when they have a legitimate argument in the annoyance realm.

    I mean, smoke while eating in a restaurant can be a BIG pain. But rather than go to the city council to force stores to ban smoking (a case of one group of people financially-backed ironically from money taken from tobbacco companies and given to the government whose forms these groups) why don't they just express their disinterest and run community-awareness programs and form groups to boycott stores with bad ventilation between sections?

    And the biggest problem?

    According to a study published in July, l999 in JAMA, the tobacco industry took in $80 million. On those same sales, the federal government took in $222 million and the states took in $293 million. So just who is in the 'tobacco business'?

    Repeat after me: Lip service to each type of voter and special interest group.

    Don't You Mean 80 Billion? (none / 0) (#349)
    by superdiva on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 11:30:55 AM EST

    According to a study published in July, l999 in JAMA, the tobacco industry took in $80 million. On those same sales, the federal government took in $222 million and the states took in $293 million. So just who is in the 'tobacco business'?

    Just doing the math. 80 billion is too important a number in this debate.
    _____________________________________________
    [ Parent ]
    Nope (none / 0) (#353)
    by Sheepdot on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 03:52:55 PM EST

    80 million.. with an "M".

    [ Parent ]
    quitting (none / 0) (#373)
    by Shren on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 09:38:32 AM EST

    You want to hear some real horror stories, you should see studies regarding some of these miracle drugs that are supposed to help you quit smoking. I ended up just going cold turkey and it worked out great.

    I found these studies very motivating. In quitting without support groups, drugs, patches, or anonymous groups, I'm showing up millions of people who are weak-willed suckers. It's very motivating, that every time I hear "I try to quit but I can't, no matter what I do" I know I'm showing up that person.

    Not that I needed any more excuses to be insufferably arrogant.

    [ Parent ]

    Smokers: STFU (2.41 / 24) (#272)
    by SkullOne on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 01:22:47 PM EST

    I cant wait till smokers get a shred of common sense, that will be the day I will have hope for humanity.
    I find it completely repulsive to be sitting at a bus stop, then to have 3 people next to me light up and puff away at their shit sticks, blowing smoke and that god awefull smell right into my face.
    Its enough to make one FUCKING VOMIT
    Go ahead, smoke in your own homes, go commit suicide by idling your car in a closed garage for all I care, just dont fucking smoke near me and contaminate me with your wretched stink.

    To all the smokers, I say a healthy "Fuck you and go to hell where you belong".
    Oh, and dont pull that "blame the cigarette companies" bit, I dont buy it. If cigarettes are so addictive for you and others, whyd you start in the first place you half-witted little piss stains?


    Oh, shut UP. (3.63 / 11) (#282)
    by kitten on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 03:39:29 PM EST

    Oh good, yet another crybaby's self-righteous indignant ravings. Oh, the cancer, oh, the smell, bitch bitch bitch.

    Let me explain something to you. If I outlawed everything I find personally objectionable or offensive, most of the population would be in jail.

    I find it completely repulsive to be sitting at a bus stop, then to have 3 people next to me light up and puff away at their shit sticks, blowing smoke and that god awefull smell right into my face.

    Yeah, great. If they're blowing smoke right in your face, you can ask them to not do that. It's not like they're out to get you personally: "Heh heh, I'm going to blow smoke in this guy's face!" You are not that important. And if you ask nicely, they'll stop.
    Meanwhile you're sitting at your bus stop with thousands of cars spewing exhaust "right in your face", too. Why don't you bitch about how that's giving you cancer and smells so bad too?

    Y'know, I find a lot of perfume to absolutely reek. I'm talking serious odor here, and when in close proximity to someone wearing it, I involuntarily gag from the stench. Do I bitch and bitch about it? Do I get into a self-righteous huff about how they're assaulting me? Do I whine to Congress and try to make it illegal?
    No, I fucking deal with it like an adult.

    Its enough to make one FUCKING VOMIT

    Most country music is enough to make me vomit, but you don't see me whining and crying like a schoolgirl about it. That shit stinks, man, and the person listening to it is assaulting me with his horrible bad taste in music! And it lingers because I hear it in my head the rest of the day! OH THE HUMANITY!

    Living in society means you put up with other people doing things you don't like.

    Grow the fuck up, or become a hermit and live far away from everyone so you'll never, ever have to be inconvenienced, you poor little baby.
    mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
    [ Parent ]
    Why can't you put up with the whiners then (n/t) (5.00 / 2) (#332)
    by Dephex Twin on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 12:40:49 AM EST




    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
    [ Parent ]
    LOL (none / 0) (#469)
    by minim on Fri Aug 02, 2002 at 07:13:07 PM EST

    hahahahahahahahaha! yeah, i'd like to see her answer that one... ;)

    [ Parent ]
    I smoke... (2.25 / 4) (#283)
    by ragabr on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 03:42:15 PM EST

    because I like it. Sometimes my girlfriend gets me to quit for a designated amount of time, I don't mind much, it doesn't cause any discomfort in me.

    It's nice that cigarette smoke makes you want to vomit. That's a conditioned reflex. I have the same response to Japanese cigarettes but I didn't go around telling the Japanese to fuck off. One thing you need to realize is that your preferences and conditioning don't mean a whit to anyone else, and for good reason.

    I and many others find tabacco smoke attractive. People like to go into analysis of it like "oh, you're regressing to an infantile state because you're turning on with oral stimulation" and other such arguments. The arguments have weight, but what isn't understood is disliking tabacco smoke is based in exactly the same type experiences. To say it short, no view is superior, so you should stop acting disdainfully towards us with different settings.

    -------
    And my tongue would be made of chocolate. Mmmmm. Chocolate.
    -rusty
    [ Parent ]
    *Gag* (4.00 / 9) (#300)
    by kyrin on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 05:01:10 PM EST

    I don't blame the tobacco companies, peer pressure or any of that bullshit.  I like smoking.  I enjoy it.  And I like pissing people like you off just as much.

    Seriously, militant nonsmokers are a riot for us smokers.  The faces you people make, the pathetic "duck and dodge the smoke" game, the coughing and gagging, it's hilarious.  Why is it hilarious?  Because we pity you and your wretched desire to protect your precious little lungs from the evil deadly cigarette smoke, yet you walk around downtown LA every day and breathe deep.  You spew little factiods about cigarette smoke polluting the air and dirtying the environment as you step into your shiny new gas guzzling SUVs.

    You eat up rhetoric and propaganda spewn at you by the ALA and the EPA like it's candy because you're too worried about lung cancer and emphyzema to leave the rest of us alone and respect the decision that we've made.  Nothing gets me angrier than someone telling me I shouldn't smoke, all selfrighteous like they know better than me.  I hate people who think they know how to run my life and who don't think I'm capable of making my own decisions.  Of course I know the risk that smoking carries, and I still do it. Respect that and keep your mouth shut.

    Some of us have better things to do than worry about living an extra 5 years and realize that in life, quality is far more important than quantity.
    --
    "God's in his heaven, all's right with the world" -Robert Browning
    [ Parent ]

    A question for the smokers. (4.00 / 4) (#302)
    by RickySilk on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 05:56:17 PM EST

    Do smokers even understand how inconsiderate it is to smoke up while others are trying to enjoy a meal? Maybe you find nothing wrong with the smell of a cigarette, and that's fine, but garbage men don't seem to mind the smell of garbage either.

    I ask the smokers to please consider this. Think of a smell that you find unpleasant and then imagine trying to enjoy a meal while that smell is in your nostrils. I bet there aren't many smokers who even consider this because they're to busy thinking about how the healthy people are trying to take their rights. I don't give a fuck about rights! I'm talking about common courtesy. Do you want to smell garbage or some other smell you find foul while you eat? That's what I want to know. Smokers please answer.

    RickySilk
    kung foo let us waste your time
    [ Parent ]

    answer (5.00 / 6) (#304)
    by mediapunk on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 06:07:34 PM EST

    Most of us never smoke around people who are eating, and are very self-conscious about trying not to bother people. Not all smokers are assholes, but plenty of assholes happen to be smokers. To base your opinion of "smokers" on a few experiences with an individual smoking amounts to stereotype. There's your answer: people who smoke around you while you're eating are assholes; that doesn't mean all smokers are assholes. peace-

    [ Parent ]
    i agree 100% (n/t) (none / 0) (#312)
    by cockroach on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 07:57:43 PM EST


    --
    Webisoder - never miss another TV episode
    [ Parent ]
    Thanks (5.00 / 2) (#322)
    by RickySilk on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 09:14:01 PM EST

    Thanks. Now that I think about it... It seems the people who come to mind that have done this are either old (over 60) or young (under 21). Neither of which are known for being very considerate of others. Take driving for example, both of those groups act like they own the road. Sterotyping again, but for the most part it's true.

    RickySilk
    kung foo let us waste your time
    [ Parent ]
    Well there you go. (3.00 / 2) (#333)
    by Dephex Twin on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 12:55:47 AM EST

    If smoking is not allowed in a place where people are eating, the assholes don't have a chance to be assholes by smoking.  Who cares if they don't like it, they're being assholes.  Those who are non-assholes shouldn't be bothered by the idea either, because they would be considerate and not do it in the first place.  So then it's good for everybody.

    You can't expect assholes to turn a new leaf, you have to twist their arms.


    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
    [ Parent ]

    Singularity (5.00 / 1) (#343)
    by kyrin on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 04:54:58 AM EST

    I always have the courtesy when dining to ask if someone minds if I smoke, before and after eating.  During meals I will oblige nonsmokers because I can see how it would be an issue while eating, however whenever else or wherever else smoking is permitted I don't ask permission and I don't even like the idea that I have to go to designated "zones" to enjoy myself.

    One thing that really upsets me about nonsmokers is that they generally fall into two categories.  They're either overly pacifistic or overly militant.  If you dine with an overly pacifistic one they'll not say anything and will sit unhappy about your smoke.  If you dine with a militant one they'll cough and bitch and whine the whole time.  People need to realize the nice happy middle ground in the middle that stems from maturity and rationale and calmly and politely say to the smoker they're with "could you not smoke during the meal, at least until I'm finished eating, it bothers me"  Why?  Because I don't know a single smoker who would refuse to be considerate like that.  If you're hanging out with someone who refuses to oblige a calmly and politely worded (key phrase) request then they're just an incosiderate person overall and they aren't incosiderate because they're a smoker, they're just incosiderate.  Therefore don't assume that all smokers are thus and don't victimize or marginalize us because of it.  That's like saying that people of a certain race or ethnicity are predisposed to crime or drug use.  We know this isn't true, however there are disproportionate numbers of crime and drug use within certain ethnicities, but they aren't necessarily linked.  Doing that is simply falling into the trap of:

    Person is inconsiderate
    Person smokes
    Therefore
    Smokers are inconsiderate

    Anyone who has taken a philosophy or debate class knows that this logic is false, and it pisses the person off to be lumped into a category like that.
    --
    "God's in his heaven, all's right with the world" -Robert Browning
    [ Parent ]

    well, (3.40 / 5) (#301)
    by d s oliver h on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 05:51:33 PM EST

    i personally have some consideration and don't smoke at bus-stops if there are other people there who would likely get the smoke in their face. but i still think you are a twisted up freak.

    [ Parent ]
    I THINK YOUR SANDWHICH SMELLS LIKE SHIT (2.00 / 7) (#303)
    by FuriousXGeorge on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 05:58:50 PM EST


    DIE, I HATE THE SMELL OF YOUR SANDWHICH!

    --
    -- FIELDISM NOW!
    [ Parent ]

    See you there (none / 0) (#365)
    by D Jade on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 05:18:37 AM EST

    SINNERS.... SINNERS!!!!

    You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
    [ Parent ]
    Awefull (none / 0) (#432)
    by vile on Tue Jul 30, 2002 at 07:36:43 PM EST

    I am always in awe of hypocrits. Your comment annoys me, but I'm not telling you not to write it -- now am I?

    ~
    The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
    [ Parent ]
    Pregnancy (3.80 / 5) (#276)
    by linca on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 02:06:59 PM EST

    This recalls me of an prospectus my mother was given when she was first pregnant. It was to discourage pregnants women from smoking. One of the arguments was that "it increase the odds of having a girl". LOL.

    this ad (2.50 / 14) (#280)
    by guyjin on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 03:25:13 PM EST

    This ad paid for by tobacco whores, inc.
    -- 散弾銃でおうがいして ください
    FYI: Smoking does not cause cancer. (3.42 / 14) (#293)
    by Caton on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 04:24:22 PM EST

    Quote from this article:

    When the tobacco executives testified to Congress that they did not believe that smoking caused cancer, there answers were probably truthful and I agree with that statement. Now if they were asked if smoking increases the risk of getting lung cancer, then the answer based upon current evidence should be "yes." But even so, the risk of a smoker getting lung cancer is much less than anyone would suspect. Based upon what the media and anti-tobacco organizations say, one would think that if you smoke, you get lung cancer (a 100% correlation) or at least expect a 50+% occurrence before someone used the word "cause."
    Now I'll just count the 0s, 1s and 5s to see how many smokers and non-smokers are on k5. Or at least, prejudiced ones.

    ---
    As long as there's hope...
    Count me in. (1.83 / 6) (#309)
    by Tezcatlipoca on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 07:46:27 PM EST

    0
    ---
    "Every duck should aspire to be crispy and aromatic." sleepyhel

    [ Parent ]
    The funny thing is... (3.00 / 2) (#319)
    by Caton on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 08:37:32 PM EST

    the non-smoking moron who rated 1 isn't rating my comment. He or she is rating his/her own prejudice.

    ---
    As long as there's hope...
    [ Parent ]
    correction (5.00 / 1) (#320)
    by Caton on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 08:38:24 PM EST

    Rated zero.

    ---
    As long as there's hope...
    [ Parent ]
    Actually... (3.40 / 5) (#296)
    by ragabr on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 04:36:55 PM EST

    I've read on various sites, google around, health-care cost estimates for smokers compared to the amount of cigarette taxes collected and in every case and country the taxes exceeded the costs, sometimes by double the amount.

    -------
    And my tongue would be made of chocolate. Mmmmm. Chocolate.
    -rusty
    Only if you put zero value on human life (none / 0) (#425)
    by jbuck on Tue Jul 30, 2002 at 03:08:10 PM EST

    As Philip Morris pointed out to the Czech government, smoking saves governments money, because the smokers die before they can collect their pensions (for USAnians, their Social Security) and this effect outweighs the costs to the state of taking care of the sick smokers. So yes, if you put zero value on human life, then it may seem to you that taxes on tobacco aren't justified.

    [ Parent ]

    Ummm... (none / 0) (#437)
    by ragabr on Wed Jul 31, 2002 at 04:09:01 AM EST

    that's not what I was saying.

    My purpose was to show that the "medical cost" argument may not be a very good one at all. In fact, if what I had read was correct (I'm not making any claims here) then it is completely worthless.

    -------
    And my tongue would be made of chocolate. Mmmmm. Chocolate.
    -rusty
    [ Parent ]
    i hate smokers (2.57 / 14) (#310)
    by blisspix on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 07:47:37 PM EST

    i hate smokers. i hate going into a bar to have a nice evening, and coming home smelling like complete and utter shit.

    so what if the SHS thing isn't completely accurate. it affects me in other ways. I am prone to sinus infections. whenever I'm near someone who's smoking, I can't stop sneezing, which leads to migraine, which leads to crap night out.

    i hate the arrogance of smokers who deliberately puff all over you, even though they can see me sneezing and coughing. and how can smokers stand the smell?

    i also have a relative that has lung cancer and another who had a heart attack because of smoking this year. don't think it won't happen to you.

    i'm fully in favour of smoke free bars, clubs, restaurants, and venues with live bands. it means I can finally enjoy a night out without migraines.

    You know what *I* hate? (3.81 / 16) (#321)
    by kitten on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 08:45:44 PM EST

    i hate smokers. i hate going into a bar to have a nice evening, and coming home smelling like complete and utter shit.

    I hate children. I hate going into a restaurant to have a nice evening and coming home with my ears ringing from their screaming.

    so what if the SHS thing isn't completely accurate. it affects me in other ways. I am prone to sinus infections.

    So what if children aren't actually harmful. They affect me in other ways. I am prone to high blood pressure and their whining, screaming, and throwing shit around the room increases my stress level.

    i hate the arrogance of smokers who deliberately puff all over you, even though they can see me sneezing and coughing.

    I hate the arrogance of parents who think the entire world should pander and kowtow to their little brats and coo over how "cute" it is as they shriek like electric banshees for an hour and a half in a movie theatre, even though they can see me giving them dirty looks.

    i also have a relative that has lung cancer and another who had a heart attack because of smoking this year. don't think it won't happen to you.

    I heard about a woman who died giving birth, and another whose son grew up and killed her. Don't think it won't happen to you.

    i'm fully in favour of smoke free bars, clubs, restaurants, and venues with live bands. it means I can finally enjoy a night out without migraines.

    I'm fully in favor of child free establishments, clubs, restaurants, movie theatres, shopping malls, and any other public place. It means I can finally enjoy a night out without migraines.


    ...OR I could quit being a whiny bitch about it and remember that living in a society with other humans means you have to put up with a certain amount of things you don't like.
    mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
    [ Parent ]
    and you could (3.14 / 7) (#324)
    by blisspix on Sat Jul 27, 2002 at 09:32:10 PM EST

    try to draw comparisons between things that actually have something in common, rather than trying to defend yourself because *you* are the problem.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually [n/t] (none / 0) (#431)
    by vile on Tue Jul 30, 2002 at 07:26:41 PM EST

    You should consider what you just said. Kitty posed a perfectly great combination of humor and point. We live in a society, and as such we must put up with things that we don't like. Example: Taxes. Hypocritical people who post dumb comments entitled "and you could." People work things out. Example: I do not smoke in the car with my friends, nor in the apartment with my girlfriend and roommate. I go outside.

    Show some humility.

    ~
    The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
    [ Parent ]
    Kids aren't allowed in bars, lucky for you (n/t) (5.00 / 1) (#334)
    by Dephex Twin on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 12:59:02 AM EST




    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
    [ Parent ]
    Everybody was once a cigarette. (5.00 / 1) (#344)
    by barnasan on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 04:56:30 AM EST


    Err... child.

    [ Parent ]
    Was, is, won't be (none / 0) (#363)
    by Quila on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 05:01:13 AM EST

    When I go to a bar or club, I expect smoke. If non-smokers want a non-smoking bar, then they should open one and hopefully they'll get rich with all the other non-smokers going there. Same with restaurants, although I sat in the non-smoking section so no smokers would be right next to me. If they don't like the restaurant with smokers, or a not too well cut-off smoking section, DON'T GO THERE. If they're complaining there are no restaurants you can go to then they should OPEN THEIR OWN. I'm sure a lot of others feel as they do.

    This is how I felt while I was a non-smoker for most of my life. This is still how I feel now that I've been a smoker for a few years. This is how I'll feel when I quit again next month (wife's pregnant, we're quitting together).

    People who'll ban smoking in voluntary public establishments (bars, clubs, restaurants, etc.) seem to have as little tolerance for other people as that old bag who used to bang on her ceiling whenever my friend living above her flushed the toilet.

    [ Parent ]

    well said kitten! (1.00 / 1) (#369)
    by gr00vey on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 08:55:52 AM EST

    I hate SUV's! ;)

    [ Parent ]
    haha (none / 0) (#430)
    by vile on Tue Jul 30, 2002 at 07:21:31 PM EST

    w0rd w0rd.... very well put.

    ~
    The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
    [ Parent ]
    What do you expect? (2.00 / 2) (#364)
    by D Jade on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 05:15:29 AM EST

    i hate the arrogance of smokers who deliberately puff all over you, even though they can see me sneezing and coughing. and how can smokers stand the smell?

    I hate the arrogance of non-smokers who think that smokers are neurotic enough to blow smoke on people on purpose... Haha! They probably can't see you sneezing and coughing, as it's most likely that they don't give a toss about you and your allergies.

    And how can we stand the smell??? Hah - we can't smell it dummy - we're smokers! Oh, and why would the smell bother you, can you smell anything with such severe sinus infections?

    Methinks you are a bullshitter

    i'm fully in favour of smoke free bars, clubs, restaurants, and venues with live bands. it means I can finally enjoy a night out without migraines

    Many places offering live entertainment actually employ the use of a smoke machine, so what the fuck are you going to do about that?!?

    Also, what the fuck is this shit? Do you also have a problem with the harmful carbon monoxide flowing from the many peoples' exhaust pipes who are driving in front of you?!?

    I think a car would produce more carbon monoxide than a smoker would don't you?!?

    But what can I do if I don't want to be harmed by your car's exhaust?!? Do you care that your car's exhaust might also contribute to lung cancer?

    Probably not... So why should I be concerned about my smoking's effect on you?

    Personally, I prefer to go outside to smoke a cigarette. It stops me from smoking so often, because it's such an effort, and it means that boring people like you will have nothing to complain about.

    Finally, to end this rude and ignorant smoker's rant, might I suggest that your head ache (sorry - migraine) are a result of alcohol consumption... or maybe it's because of all of the paint and glue that you have been sniffing... that's a bad habit... Are you even sure that it is a migraine and not just a headache?!?

    You should see a doctor about that if it is serious enough to whinge about it on K5...

    Oh yes, I talk a lot for someone who doesn't care, but I am bored... and a bored person with a keyboard is a very bad thing... but it's better than an interested person (such as yourself) with nothing to say...



    You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
    [ Parent ]
    Those cigarettes don't seem to be relaxing you (none / 0) (#380)
    by Dephex Twin on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 11:18:25 AM EST

    "Many places offering live entertainment actually employ the use of a smoke machine, so what the fuck are you going to do about that?!?"

    Yes, it is called a "smoke" machine, and the smoke is sort of a similar color to cigarette smoke, but the smoke itself is totally and completely different from cigarette smoke.  I doubt that the person you are replying to has something against all kinds of smoke, only those kinds that cause major discomfort.  It's like arguing that someone who doesn't like coffee should also dislike cola because it's a similarly colored liquid.

    You also seem to be making a lot of assumptions about the individual you were replying to, and a lot of those assumptions don't make much sense.  For example, the fact that they have clogged up sinuses doesn't mean this person isn't going to be bothered by cigarette smoke.  The smoke burns your nose, throat, and eyes.  It doesn't matter if you can't smell a thing, cigarette smoke can still bother you.  Also, you claim that the person should be equally angry at car exhaust fumes.  Maybe the reason he does not complain as much is because car exhaust fumes are not as irritating!  How can this be?  Well, maybe if he found himself with his face right in front of exhaust pipes all the time, or if people brought running automobiles into bars (and other enclosed areas), he might be more annoyed at them.

    You seem to be coming from the standpoint that people who complain about smoking are either lying or greatly exaggerating.  Maybe you've just forgotten what a sense of smell is like.


    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
    [ Parent ]

    They aren't (none / 0) (#472)
    by D Jade on Mon Aug 05, 2002 at 06:26:32 AM EST

    I was in tute when I was making the comment and I was incredibly pissed off and bored... but I still stand by my original post.

    and the smoke is sort of a similar color to cigarette smoke, but the smoke itself is totally and completely different from cigarette smoke

    Mate, a roomful of smoke is a roomful of smoke.... What the article was pointing out is that second-hand smoke had a risk factor that was negligible in itself.

    I am making a point that this person with weak sinuses either has a strong aversion to smoke in general, or they have been conditioned to associate cigarette smoke with inflamed sinuses... which, I might add, is also the case with many animal allergies, and a good deal of Hay-Fever cases.



    You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
    [ Parent ]
    see this (5.00 / 1) (#408)
    by blisspix on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 09:50:24 PM EST

    http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2002/7/26/121629/037/313#313

    and yes i have seen a doctor.

    [ Parent ]

    In my opinion... (4.33 / 6) (#348)
    by uriyan on Sun Jul 28, 2002 at 09:28:42 AM EST

    I live in Israel. About a year ago, the Knesset (Parliament) has adopted a bill that forbids people to smoke in public areas (with an the exception of smoker-only areas). I support that bill, and I think it was a good idea.

    Personally, I dislike cigarette smoke, and so does a significant majority of non-smokers. I feel that while I do somehting passive (like sitting in a café), it is unjust for me to be harrased by active actions of other people (such as igniting a cigarette) - if they initiate this activity, they should also take care to do this in a way that would fit in with the rest of the public.

    It seems quite apparent to me, that even "passive" smoking involves some inhalation of ash, and can hardly be characterized as safe. Moreover, even if it is not proven to be very dangerous, it is still quite unpleasant and I feel that there's no reason for other people to make me feel uncomfortable for them to relax.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    Do you people look up the words you use? (3.00 / 7) (#357)
    by Shovas on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 12:33:18 AM EST

    "Anti-smoking zealot" ? Did you just feel the need to use that phrase because it sounds authoritative and makes it look like you know what you're talking about? Dear me.

    You have no grounds to speak from. Your smoking is in no doubt harmful to your health. If the same air you're breathing is harmful to you, you better believe it's harmful to me!

    Get off your freaking soapbox, educate yourself and drag your pathetic excuse for breathing air into reality.
    ---
    Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
    ---
    Disagree? Post. Don't mod.
    Vocabulary (none / 0) (#417)
    by Irobot on Tue Jul 30, 2002 at 10:52:11 AM EST

    zeal·ot n.
    1.
    a. One who is zealous, especially excessively so.
    b. A fanatically committed person.

    This seems like an accurate description of those who say "Smoking is disgusting. I don't care if you like it, I don't. Go away and die."

    I tire of pointing this out. The article is all about the question of how harmful SHS actually is. It was found to be insignificantly detrimental unless someone is constantly exposed to it. I was rather surprised to find you authored this after our conversation on evangelism - in which you were quite reasonable. Please, try to recognize the hypocrisy of telling people to get off their soapbox.

    Irobot

    The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
    [ Parent ]

    Check my signature ;) (none / 0) (#433)
    by Shovas on Tue Jul 30, 2002 at 08:01:19 PM EST

    I'm sick of all the people I see on the Internet going around espousing on garbage that is logically incorrect. I'll point out these falicies where they exist because I'm tired of reading trash.

    I'm quite reasonable when others are reasonable but I'm just plain frustrated by the repulsive content over the last few months on K5 and elsewhere.I've stayed away from K5 over the past few months but came back with a changed attitude. Giving up is not the answer. Allowing others to realize their mistakes is much better. Ignorance is something that shouldn't be let to grow.

    The definition of the word 'zealot' is not where my problem lies. It lies with the intent the word was used with. Zealot is a word that is thrown around and used by fools to sound authoritative. This is the that case.

    As for SHS being insignificant, so is first-hand smoking for a large group of people. Some last their whole lives without any problems. Some get cancer. It's the same with second-hand smoke. There is a real danger to others and it bothers me quite a bit that someone would feel they had grounds to stand on to attempt to persuade others that second-hand smoke perhaps isn't so bad.
    ---
    Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
    ---
    Disagree? Post. Don't mod.
    [ Parent ]
    I don't see your point (none / 0) (#451)
    by Irobot on Wed Jul 31, 2002 at 10:29:30 AM EST

    I was going to leave this one hanging, but then thought better of it. I'll attempt to keep a reasonable tone - I apologize in advance if I slip.

    The definition of the word 'zealot' is not where my problem lies. It lies with the intent the word was used with. Zealot is a word that is thrown around and used by fools to sound authoritative. This is the that case.
    Evidently, you do not smoke. I would classify you as a non-smoker, as opposed to an anti-smoker. Zealot, in this case, is a perfect description of the anti-smoker stance. Since you are a non-smoker, I would venture a guess that you have never been on the receiving end of an anti-smoker tirade. I would further guess that because you agree with the anti-smoker sentiment, what is perceived as "zealotry" by smokers slides by you. The fact that "zealot" is a "two dollar word" is simply an example of the richness of the English language.
    It's the same with second-hand smoke. There is a real danger to others and it bothers me quite a bit that someone would feel they had grounds to stand on to attempt to persuade others that second-hand smoke perhaps isn't so bad.
    For clarity, I'll not that the risk involved with SHS has been found to be insignificant. And I'll reiterate - the risk involved with SHS is not the same as smoking. As described in the K5 article, the scientific proof that trace amounts of SHS is harmful have been called into question and found to be invalid. These are the grounds to stand on that SHS perhaps isn't so bad as it is made out to be. Yes, there are people that are extremely affected by smoke. Yes, constant exposure has been scientifically proven to be detrimental. It is not as bad as the anti-smoker zealots make it out to be. Which puts their claims square into the realm of propaganda that reinforces an unreasonable stance.

    Irobot

    The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
    [ Parent ]

    I would've said two-bit word (none / 0) (#453)
    by Shovas on Wed Jul 31, 2002 at 02:58:32 PM EST

    Sure we can all say SHS is not as bad as first-hand, but that doesn't mean SHS is not harmful. The tone of the story seemed to indicate that there was a big fuss over nothing from the anti-smoking side. As far as enclosed spaces are concerned--restaurants, theatres, public buildings/places, libraries, whatnot--I'm all for banning smoking because there is a significant health concern there. Again, the story apparently was trying to downplay this fact. From what I was seeing the author was attempting to make people rethink the notion that second-hand smoke is hazardous to their health. That is what I was debating. Perhaps the story could've been clearer.
    ---
    Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
    ---
    Disagree? Post. Don't mod.
    [ Parent ]
    Facts (by a has-been-smoker) (4.50 / 6) (#362)
    by Chakotay on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 04:13:46 AM EST

    Fact: Various substances in cigarette smoke are known carcinogens.

    Fact: Cancer is never caused by one single cause. Much like an airline crash, it is always caused by a combination of various factors.

    Thus, smoke (and thereby second-hand smoke) do not, as such, cause cancer. However, it does increase the risk of getting cancer.

    Fact: Cigarette smoke is extremely dangerous for people with lung conditions, such as people suffering from asthmatic problems, bronchitis, mucoviscosis (viscomucosis?), or a 'simple' smoke allergy.

    That fact alone should already be reason enough to ban smoking from all public buildings.

    Fact: Smoking is bad for your health. Period. No doubt about that can even be possible. Second hand smoke is thus also bad for your health. Less bad than smoking, that's for sure, but bad anyway.

    I don't understand why smokers want to have the 'right' to smoke in public buildings. I have smoked for 6 years, but never in public buildings, and never in the vicinity of somebody who had a problem with it. Yes, ofcourse, smokers have rights too. But I think the right of somebody who is suffering from lung problems to be in a public building without hacking up his lungs overrides the right of smokers to smoke by many many miles. No contest. So quit the squabble already and be reasonable.

    --
    Linux like wigwam. No windows, no gates, Apache inside.

    Sure (4.00 / 1) (#377)
    by jovlinger on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 10:34:30 AM EST

    non smokers can ban smoking in public places as soon as non drivers can ban driving in metropolitan areas. Seems fair to me.

    [ Parent ]
    Excuse me? (none / 0) (#378)
    by Chakotay on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 10:41:41 AM EST

    Driving in metropolitan areas can unfortunately not be banned because there is not enough public transportation, and the public transportation that there is, is not of good enough quality. Driving in metropolitan areas thus becomes a necessity. Smoking in public areas is in no way a necessity. Just step a few yards out the door, and you can smoke however much you like in the healthy outdoors.

    --
    Linux like wigwam. No windows, no gates, Apache inside.

    [ Parent ]
    Drivers are responsible (none / 0) (#459)
    by peyna on Thu Aug 01, 2002 at 12:34:25 PM EST

    for their actions if they hurt other people.  Thus, if smoking does indeed cause harm to innocent bystanders, I think a public ban would be well within constitutional protections.  One persons right to life is far more important than your freedom to smoke a cigarette.

    [ Parent ]
    Squabbles (none / 0) (#384)
    by Irobot on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 12:04:41 PM EST

    Fact: Smoking is bad for your health. Period. No doubt about that can even be possible. Second hand smoke is thus also bad for your health. Less bad than smoking, that's for sure, but bad anyway. (emphasis mine)
    See - this is the point of the article. What is being called into question is whether general exposure is a significant risk. Anti-smokers like to use this as a propaganda point; e.g., continual exposure to SHS (like a smoker's spouse) is bad, therefore any trace amount of SHS is bad. Hence the tired analogy to car exhaust: Breathing car exhaust is bad for you. Therefore cars should be banned.

    The squabble arises in the application of the idea; that is, when anti-smokers attempt to outlaw smoking anywhere they may be affected based on flawed "scientific" studies. Which wouldn't be an issue except that the flawed studies are taken as gospel and complete smoking bans seem to be the general direction legislation is going. It's the lack of choice - for instance, not being able, by law, to allow smoking in any restaurants or bars (or even outdoors) - that is unreasonable.

    Irobot

    The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
    [ Parent ]

    Maybe unsignificant for the general population (none / 0) (#412)
    by Chakotay on Tue Jul 30, 2002 at 02:06:10 AM EST

    but, as I said, there are lots of people to whom second-hand cigarette smoke is a significant risk. The fact alone that a lot of people have asthma, bronchitis or other lung conditions, or are allergic to smoke, should be enough reason to ban smoking from public buildings.

    --
    Linux like wigwam. No windows, no gates, Apache inside.

    [ Parent ]
    See also (4.00 / 1) (#415)
    by Irobot on Tue Jul 30, 2002 at 08:57:41 AM EST

    Car/bus/truck exhaust. Or any other contributing factor (eg, perfume, pet dander, etc.) that makes a minority ill.

    Irobot

    The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
    [ Parent ]

    Apples, pears, oranges. (none / 0) (#455)
    by Chakotay on Thu Aug 01, 2002 at 04:41:25 AM EST

    I believe that pets (except 'working dogs' such as police dogs and seeing eye dogs) are also generally not allowed in public buildings.

    And though I agree that traffic in agglomerations around the world should be reduced, you can't possibly NOT see the fundamental difference between driving a car on the public road (in the open air), and smoking a cigarette in a public building (a closed area).

    We're not talking about banning smoking from all public areas. Just from public buildings.

    --
    Linux like wigwam. No windows, no gates, Apache inside.

    [ Parent ]

    OK, look... (none / 0) (#460)
    by Irobot on Thu Aug 01, 2002 at 12:55:02 PM EST

    You're point was that SHS may not be harmful to the general population, but it is to some people and therefore should be banned in public buildings.

    My point had nothing to do in particular with the open air/closed space distinction, but the minority aspect. A minority of the population is affected by dander, perfume, etc., but it doesn't lend weight to banning those things.

    And, unfortunately for me and other smokers, the anti-smoking contingent does desire to see smoking banned in all public places, indoor and out. (Have you read the comments?)

    Irobot

    The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
    [ Parent ]

    Why do businesses have to go out of their way ... (none / 0) (#465)
    by Chakotay on Fri Aug 02, 2002 at 03:09:32 AM EST

    ... to make their builidngs accessable to people with disabilities? After all, those are a minority group too. (Yes, bad comparison. Baaad comparison. Go sit in a corner.)

    And actually, I do perfectly agree with you that banning smoking from all public areas, indoors and out, is totally ludicrous. Outdoors, you can very easily stay upwind from smokers, or kindly ask them if they could please stay downwind from you if you can't.

    However, I do believe, as an ex-smoker (and a I was a very heavy smoker), that smoking should be banned from all public buildings (such as schools, libraries, city halls), offices, and indoor malls. And that in general restaurants should have designated smoking areas instead of designated non-smoking areas (see the little difference?)

    Here in France there aren't, as far as I know, any laws on smoking in shops and offices, but by far most of them have no smoking signs posted.

    --
    Linux like wigwam. No windows, no gates, Apache inside.

    [ Parent ]

    I'd say it is pretty harmful (none / 0) (#457)
    by peyna on Thu Aug 01, 2002 at 12:30:55 PM EST

    From my own experience making house calls for an ISP I had to work in one house for about 30 minutes. The smoke was so heavy in the air from who knows how many years of 10 packs a day going into everything in the house that while I was there I could feel it on the back of my throat, and later that day I developed a severe sore throat which lasted 2 weeks.  That alone, plus the fact that whenever someone within about 10 yards of me lights up I immediately can smell it and it burns the inside of my nose and throat, lead me to believe that it is indeed harmful to other people.

    I would say that all reactions my body and others have when we are around smokers is a good enough sign that it is harmful to at least some people, if not all.

    [ Parent ]

    The anecdote (none / 0) (#461)
    by Irobot on Thu Aug 01, 2002 at 01:02:32 PM EST

    • Some people skydive
    • Some people's chutes haven't opened
    • Some people have suffered no injury when their chutes did not open
    This does not mean that skydiving without a chute is a good idea. You apply the logic to your argument (and reread both the K5 article and my previous comment).

    Irobot

    The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
    [ Parent ]

    Tobacco Smoke Is Not Allergenic! (none / 0) (#410)
    by Robert Uhl on Tue Jul 30, 2002 at 01:28:45 AM EST

    Fact: Cigarette smoke is extremely dangerous for people with lung conditions, such as people suffering from asthmatic problems, bronchitis, mucoviscosis (viscomucosis?), or a 'simple' smoke allergy.

    That might be true, were tobacco smoke allergenic. Unfortunately (four your mindset; fortunately for those who love freedom), it's not. Not at all. Not even a little bit. A simple Google search will reveal all the data you need. It's effectively impossible to be allergic to tobacco smoke.

    I should note that while I smoke a pipe and the occasional cigar, I cannot stand the odour of cigarettes; they make me ill. I am not, however, allergic to them, nor do I demand that others change their behaviour to suit my predilections (a filthy habit I picked up after reading J.S. Mill).

    [ Parent ]

    Impossible to be allergic to smoke??? (none / 0) (#413)
    by Chakotay on Tue Jul 30, 2002 at 02:10:54 AM EST

    Then how come there are people who have allergic reactions to smoke?

    People can be allergic to anything. There are even people who are allergic to water.

    And even if you were right, that still leaves those millions of people with asthmatic problems and other lung conditions.

    --
    Linux like wigwam. No windows, no gates, Apache inside.

    [ Parent ]

    It's not truly an allergy (none / 0) (#458)
    by peyna on Thu Aug 01, 2002 at 12:33:01 PM EST

    Those situations are more intolerances.  Many people that are "allergic" to milk, merely can't digest lactose, and it makes them ill.  But it isn't an allergy.  Most food allergies are this way.  Consuming it has an adverse affect on the body, but it isn't an allergy, it's an intolerance or other function.

    Simply because it isn't allergenic, does not mean people will not have ill effects from inhaling second hand smoke.

    [ Parent ]

    non-allergenic, eh? (none / 0) (#419)
    by ceejayoz on Tue Jul 30, 2002 at 11:34:43 AM EST

    care to explain why my skin itches around a smoker, then?

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe it's not the tobacco (none / 0) (#420)
    by Dephex Twin on Tue Jul 30, 2002 at 12:16:23 PM EST

    but one of the other thousand chemicals in the cigarette?


    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
    [ Parent ]
    Being Reasonable. (none / 0) (#468)
    by Binky the Oracle on Fri Aug 02, 2002 at 06:08:18 PM EST

    The problem, Chakotay, is that there has been a significant erosion of manners and what is considered acceptable behavior over the last century. Consider the following three acts:

    • You're listening to the latest Eminem CD in your car.
    • You have an open and frank discussion with your significant other about your sex life.
    • You drain your swimming pool.

    None of these things are wrong or impolite in and of themselves, but can become so in context:

    • You're listening to the latest Eminem CD in your car at full volume while driving through a neighborhood at 3 am
    • You have an open and frank discussion with your significant other about your sex life while dining at Chuck E. Cheese
    • You drain your swimming pool and kill half of your neighbor's lawn.

    You are apparently a polite and conscientious smoker (of which I have met many), whereas many are not. I don't care if people smoke or not. I do care when they throw their cigarette butts out the window of their car. I do care when the guy who lives two floors below me smokes on his balcony because he doesn't want his apartment to reek, but doesn't care that the smoke goes directly into my apartment (this actually happened to me and he actually refused to smoke elsewhere.)

    Conversely, there are many rude non-smokers as well. I would never ask someone not to smoke on the street simply because I was walking by. I don't mind if people want to smoke in a nightclub or bar. I appreciate people asking if I mind them smoking (and I normally don't unless I'm eating or in my house or car). I find it incredibly irritating when people assume that they have a "right" to smoke in any situation.

    What many smokers fail to grasp is that, because smoke is a pervasive thing that affects everyone around, and because it is something that cannot be kept under control (gasses spread), the onus is on them to ensure that they are not inconveniencing others. Those same smokers who scream about their "right" to smoke in a restaurant wouldn't put up with me bringing in a boom box to that same restaurant and blasting music that they found offensive. I just don't understand why it's a difficult concept to grasp.

    Ultimately, I think it all boils down to being polite and respecting other people. If we all did that, there wouldn't be as much of a problem.

    But then, I live in a fairy-land with leprechauns and unicorns...

    [ Parent ]

    I am fed up with the hype (5.00 / 1) (#368)
    by gr00vey on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 08:49:37 AM EST

    All this anti-smoking hype is a waste of money and resources IMHO. The marketing behind it is over-zealous to say the least, and I am just really sick of it. If anything, I think this much overtly biased media exposure will backfire, and not have the intended results.

    One of the reasons I went back to cigars (none / 0) (#372)
    by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 09:24:25 AM EST

    Was sheer annoyance at anti-smokers.


    --
    In anticipation, John licked his own lips.
    - A. Lloyd -


    [ Parent ]
    Way to go! You showed them. (n/t) (none / 0) (#381)
    by Dephex Twin on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 11:21:49 AM EST




    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
    [ Parent ]
    Yup. When I die, they'll be sorry. [NT] (none / 0) (#383)
    by porkchop_d_clown on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 12:01:46 PM EST


    --
    In anticipation, John licked his own lips.
    - A. Lloyd -


    [ Parent ]
    You do realize... (none / 0) (#398)
    by curunir on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 05:04:04 PM EST

    That much of the anti-smoking stuff you see on tv/billboards/etc is the result of court orders forcing the tobacco industry to pay for smoking awareness programs. It is intended to follow the letter of those orders with as little impact on tobacco sales as possible.

    So, yes, it's pretty much a complete waste of money since it's intended to have as little effect as possible.

    [ Parent ]
    Honest question (none / 0) (#385)
    by WorLord on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 01:51:28 PM EST

    Hi.  I have a question that does not aim to pick a side either way (smoking or non), but will ultimately have to be answered by the non-smokers (given the nature of it).  So please, don't assume that I'm trying to advocate smoking or non-, I'm not.  I just want an honest answer.  So without further ado:

    Q: Wouldn't it make much more sense to ban outdoor smoking and relegate it to indoors only?

    The reason I ask is because I think the entire situation (regulation of smoking) is quite backwards and more harmful to non-smokers then otherwise.  See, I know several people who are those deathly-allergic-to-cigarettes types.  (My wife is one of them).  I know several others who merely strongly dislike being in proximity to the smell.  I am usually pretty neutral about it either way.  

    And the thing is, in my state, smoking is pretty much not allowed anywhere indoors (unless you are in your own house/apt/condo).  This leaves the smokers only one place to go: outside, very often on the streets.  And the funny thing about _that_ is that everyone I know has to go outside their smoke-free apartments and through smoke-FILLED streets in order to make it to these now-smoke-free havens.  

    It seems to me that, thanks to the nature of the regulations in place now, allergic-type people are left without a choice in the matter.  No matter what they decide to do - short of simply not leaving the house - they are forced to deal with smokers, because the streets and private residences are the only places the smokers have left to go.  

    I am not in favor of making smoking illegal in all ways, and oddly enough, neither is my wife.  People should be free to do as they wish.  But it just seems that it makes infinitely more sense to relegate smoking to an inside-only event.  As in, ban smoking in public places like streets, parks, and concerts, and allow it only in privately owned establishments (like a bar, workplace, restaurant, hotel, etc. etc.)  So many problems would be solved, IMO, if this were the case.  People like my wife would actually have some say in the matter; for she can successfully avoid smoking-friendly establishments, and can more certainly have a smoke-free way of getting about.  And as an added bonus, the animosity between smokers and non-smokers would fade to almost nothing, because (for example) a non-smoker wouldn't have to endure a face full of foul-smelling grey air at a bus stop/park bench/street/whatever.  

    Am I completely off-kilter on this?
    "Kill two birds with one stone: Feed the Homeless to the Hungry." --WorLord

    No it wouldn't (5.00 / 1) (#389)
    by Cro Magnon on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 02:26:50 PM EST

    Q: Wouldn't it make much more sense to ban outdoor smoking and relegate it to indoors only?
    If there are a bunch of two-legged chimneys outside the door to my workplace, I can hold my breath for the brief time I'm walking past them. If those same two-legged chimneys are allowed to smoke IN the workplace, I could be subjected to their poison for 8+ hours daily!
    Information wants to be beer.
    [ Parent ]
    I see your point (none / 0) (#392)
    by WorLord on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 02:58:56 PM EST

    Perhaps I was a bit out of line in suggesting that workplaces be smoking-friendly.  

    Maybe having (at the building owner's discretion, of course) some sort of enclosed smoking room to provide for the wants/needs of smokers instead?  A good example of this would be the San Francisco Airport - there is a room there with walls made of plexiglass.  The ceiling is lined with HEPA filters, and one can go in there and sit and smoke without contaminating the rest of the airport.

     
    "Kill two birds with one stone: Feed the Homeless to the Hungry." --WorLord
    [ Parent ]

    Smoking room (none / 0) (#395)
    by Cro Magnon on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 03:54:58 PM EST

    I have no objection to separate smoking rooms, as long they keep their noxious gasses away from me! The workplace is the absolute worst place to allow smoking. I can, and do avoid bars because of the thick smoke, and it dissipates fairly quickly outdoors, but it would be intolerable indoors where I couldn't just walk out!
    Information wants to be beer.
    [ Parent ]
    Is this serious? (none / 0) (#390)
    by Dephex Twin on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 02:36:47 PM EST

    Smoking only outside makes more sense for the same reason that you can stand in a parking lot full of idling cars, but you will die in a room with one idling car.

    The outside air is big and things can dissipate easily.  There is a lot of room to avoid being near smokers as well when outside.  Being outside is like being in the most spacious room possible with its own cleansing system.  While I have been driving behind a smoker or at a bus stop near a smoker, I have never experienced this "smoke-filled outdoors" that you talk about.  I have never bent down to smell a flower and found it was covered in a smoke stench.  I haven't heard of non-smokers forced to stay inside because the outdoors is infested with cigarette smoke.  Does this really happen to you (or your wife, or anyone you know) somehow??

    Have you ever been to an outdoor concert as opposed to an indoor one?  The difference is like night and day!

    This idea really makes no sense whatsoever, no offense.  But I suspect you're kidding...


    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
    [ Parent ]

    Choice? (none / 0) (#391)
    by WorLord on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 02:55:16 PM EST

    Heh.  I can see how it might come off like I were being sarcastic, but unfortunately, I'm actually dim enough to be serious ;-).  

    Must be all those cigars I smoke.  Anyway...

    I understand fully the idea of being in a room filled with smoke, but oddly enough, smokers do not seem to mind (if being in haze-filled bars is any indication, anyway).  The point is, there would be more of a choice if it were an inside event - smokers could choose to have thier cigs, and deal with the SHS that comes as a result.  I would even go so far as to state that owners of smoking establishments have to meet a certain criteria - HEPA filters and such, in order to cut down on smoke stagnation.

    For example, I spend more then enough time in a tobacco shop down the street from where I work, and smoking is actually allowed there.  It's kind of where I got the whole idea, in fact.  I very often choose to smoke my cigars in there, because I feel more comfortable doing it in the company of other smokers, and out of the street where it is commonplace for people to make near-epileptic waving fits when they come within 300 yards of any kind of tobacco smoke.  

    It was just an observation, really.  Right now, if living through other people's eyes is any indication (read some of the venom-filled anti-smoking comments here), there simply isn't enough breathing room (cheezy pun) for anti-smokers as things stand, whereas I think there would be if smoking were confined to certain indoor-areas.  

    As for it really happening to me, I couldn't really give you a good answer, as I smoke cigars and tend to notice cigarette smoke about as much as I notice exhaust from a bus... as in, almost never.  It's just one of many background oders that don't even blip my scent-radar.  I just really think that reversing the current trend would be a great improvement over the state of things as they are today.
    "Kill two birds with one stone: Feed the Homeless to the Hungry." --WorLord
    [ Parent ]

    Depends on what sort of indoor smoking (none / 0) (#393)
    by Dephex Twin on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 03:20:07 PM EST

    The big problem with indoor smoking is that it only takes a very small minority of smokers before there is a huge amount of irritation to non-smokers.

    I have no problem with designated smoking areas indoors.  If there is some way I can avoid the smoke, that's all I ask.  We have a smoking lounge at my office.  Absolutely no problem whatsoever.  The door stays closed and I don't have anything to irritate me.  If smoking were allowed in the hallways, elevators, and (god forbid) offices themselves, I might literally have to seek new employment.  It's tough enough to find a decent job as it is.  If smoking were also *not* allowed outside, bars would only become worse!  They would have no choice.

    Maybe I would eventually get used to it.  If the person in the cubicle next to me played bass-blaring gangsta rap at high volume I might eventually get used to that as well.  That music shouldn't be so important that the person in the next cubicle can't listen at home or with headphones.  The smoking shouldn't be so important that the person can't smoke in a smoking lounge or outside.

    Of course, a nice person will be considerate and we can work out a solution.  Restrictions aren't for the considerate people, they're for the assholes which seem to inevidably crop up in every social situation.


    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
    [ Parent ]

    It's a good idea. It is the future. (5.00 / 1) (#409)
    by mediapunk on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 09:57:19 PM EST

    WorLord, I think it's a very forward-thinking idea, and I think you make a good point when you say that "there simply isn't enough breathing room... for anti-smokers". This really is what it's all about, isn't it? The very scent of cigarette smoke is a moral affront to anti-smokers (most non-smokers are, I believe, "anti-smokers"); they have chosen "smoking" as a worthy evil against which to stand in opposition. This is a psychological battle; SHS and its effects are a fine weapon for the anti-smoking contingent, but these conclusions are, in the end, irrelevant.

    Since the battle is not for health considerations, but for moral supremacy, it ultimately will not matter whether second-hand smoke is harmful or not. It will come down to the premise that if there is ANY chance of a non-smoker even detecting cigarette smoke this will be a personal, psychological, and moral offense that is unacceptable. The only way to ensure that non-smokers are not exposed is to confine smokers to an enclosed area. I foresee many more smoking establishments in the next 5-10 years. They will thrive in somewhat the same way that coffee shops thrived in the nineties and into today.

    Smokers were pushed outside, and now we'll be pushed back inside. The beauty is we smokers don't care, we just wanna SMOKE dammit! :)

    peace out folks--

    [ Parent ]

    You mean I'm not nuts? ;-) (none / 0) (#421)
    by WorLord on Tue Jul 30, 2002 at 12:33:33 PM EST

    "This really is what it's all about, isn't it? The very scent of cigarette smoke is a moral affront to anti- smokers..."

    Pretty much, yes. I know the article that spawned all these comments was about second-hand smoke, but I gotta tell ya - it goes well beyond that. Reading some of the comments here tells me that it is a highly-charged issue. People who don't smoke - for whatever reasons they state - simply don't want anything to do with smoking whatsoever.

    "The only way to ensure that non-smokers are not exposed is to confine smokers to an enclosed area."

    Exactly. I think the non-smoking contingency is just now starting to realize how badly it screwed up by making nearly everything with a roof over it a smoke-free zone. There was a lack of planning... you can push the smokers out of the buildings, but where are they going to go? That's right... outside, on the streets you have to use. Which would be fine if non-smokers were okay sharing a sidewalk with a two-legged chimney, but as some of the comments I've read here clearly show, they are not.

    Keeping smoking to an enclosed inside-only area really seems to be the only smart way to handle it, which makes me wonder what people were thinking when they made everywhere BUT outside a non-smoking area. (And think of the cigarette butts that would no longer litter the outside world if smoking rooms with trashcans were provided...)


    "Kill two birds with one stone: Feed the Homeless to the Hungry." --WorLord
    [ Parent ]
    Not crazy if (none / 0) (#423)
    by Dephex Twin on Tue Jul 30, 2002 at 12:52:06 PM EST

    If smokers were confined to smoking areas indoors, then that would be the best scenario.  But it can't be that anywhere indoors is fair game for smoking.  If I had to choose between that and smoking only outside, I'd take outside hands down, no doubt about it.

    That's the distinction that makes the idea either innovative or idiotic =]


    Alcohol: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems. -- Homer Simpson
    [ Parent ]

    Clarity (none / 0) (#424)
    by WorLord on Tue Jul 30, 2002 at 02:34:17 PM EST

    Oh.  I see, I wansn't at my clearest here.

    No, I'm pretty much proposing that only ENCLOSED indoor sections be legal havens for smokers to partake.  And I'm not referring to the half-hearted smoking sections in restaurants, either - something PHYSICAL has to separate the smokers from the non-smokers.  There's little point going to dinner and sitting in a "non-smoking section" that's only about two tables away from a smoking section with nothing to separate the two.

    Designate a room - with doors - as a smoking lounge.  Make a plexiglass enclosure (similar to the one in the San Francisco int'l airport) where smoking is allowed.  If you own a bar and allow smoking bar-wide, adverstise that fact so that people can know whether or not they should go in beforehand.  

    An extra bonus to this idea would be that every smoker I've discussed this with would be thrilled to have their own room to go to.  I know I would.  Every time I go to a club with a smoking lounge (I do live in California) I feel blessed.  ;-) Standing outside is not the first choice, really, and the extra bonus would be having a place to be away from the oft-critical non-smoking crowd.

    And once those modifications are made, get it off the streets, because everyone pretty much has to share those.
    "Kill two birds with one stone: Feed the Homeless to the Hungry." --WorLord
    [ Parent ]

    Non-smoking areas (none / 0) (#456)
    by Cro Magnon on Thu Aug 01, 2002 at 10:20:11 AM EST

    And I'm not referring to the half-hearted smoking sections in restaurants, either - something PHYSICAL has to separate the smokers from the non-smokers. There's little point going to dinner and sitting in a "non-smoking section" that's only about two tables away from a smoking section with nothing to separate the two.
    Very true! My GF likes to play Bingo, and I've attempted to take her, but the air at the "non-smoking" table is so thick you could cut it with a knife! I've had to tell her that I'll take her anywhere with real air, but if she wants to go to those Bingo halls, she'll have to do it without me.
    Information wants to be beer.
    [ Parent ]
    St Louis Airport (none / 0) (#438)
    by FatHed on Wed Jul 31, 2002 at 05:31:43 AM EST

    Last time I was in the St Slouis airport, they allowed smoking indoors in glass enclosed rooms. California bars I thought could do the same, almost like a phone booth.

    Either way, forcing people to go outside to smoke could be damaging to their health as well, be it cold or hot. Now, granted, most people could probably use to spend more time out doors, but obviously your can't force healthy behavior.

    Intelligence is a matter of opinion.
    [ Parent ]
    Just stay away from me (5.00 / 1) (#403)
    by hardburn on Mon Jul 29, 2002 at 08:03:37 PM EST

    Just stay away from me while you light up and I'm quite happy. I can't stand the smell of the smoke, and I have a family history of asthma as it is. Still, they keep saying this is a free country, so you're perfectly welcome to kill yourselves at whatever speed you see fit. Just stay away from me.


    ----
    while($story = K5::Story->new()) { $story->vote(-1) if($story->section() == $POLITICS); }


    You got it; just tell me when you're nearby (n/t) (5.00 / 1) (#418)
    by Irobot on Tue Jul 30, 2002 at 10:56:22 AM EST


    Irobot

    The one important thing I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. -- Margot Fonteyn
    [ Parent ]

    Oregon (none / 0) (#429)
    by vile on Tue Jul 30, 2002 at 06:58:37 PM EST

    Oregon has a "No Smoking in the workplace" law in effect. Violating my rights to smoke while I work.

    ~
    The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
    Huh? (none / 0) (#467)
    by Binky the Oracle on Fri Aug 02, 2002 at 05:40:34 PM EST

    Please understand that I'm not flaming you, but I do want to know where your claim of a "right to smoke" is based.

    In the culture of entitlement we've built since the Roosevelt years, the word "right" has been somewhat diluted. Most dictionaries give the relevant definition of right as something close to "a power or possession to which one has an established legal, moral, or just claim."

    Lots of wiggle-words in there to be sure, but whereas we used to have fairly basic rights (to life and liberty, etc.), we now have such lesser politically-derived "rights" consumer rights, victim rights, animal rights, quality of life rights, senior citizen rights, children's rights, etc.

    The U.S. constitution has been selectively invoked when dealing with corporations and places of employment. For example, it has been ruled constitutional for laws to prohibit a corporation from discriminating for various reasons, but not when dealing with something like the first amendment. You have no constitutional free speech rights when dealing with a non-government employer.

    So given that, where are you deriving a "right" to smoke in the workplace? Do those rights supercede the "rights" of those who don't want to smoke or breathe said smoke in the workplace? Do you feel that your "right" to smoke in the workplace deserves special exemption from other air quality regulations (i.e. no government would permit a company to force employees to work in a polluted environment without providing some form of pollution control or breathing apparatus). Should companies be forced to provide breathing systems to protect the "rights" of non-smokers while honoring your "right" to smoke? Does the state constitution of Oregon provide a right to smoke or contain some clause that you're interpreting as such?

    Again, this isn't a flame - I'm interested in your view on where the "right" to smoke in the workplace is derived, and how it impacts the "rights" of your coworkers.

    [ Parent ]

    Sure. (none / 0) (#470)
    by vile on Sun Aug 04, 2002 at 12:45:48 PM EST

    I understand the rights argument that you port forward, however, I run my own business. I own the property that I smoke on. I have no employees, nor customers that walk into my office. What I do there is strictly my business - noone elses.. the statute takes away that ability.

    ~
    The money is in the treatment, not the cure.
    [ Parent ]
    That's the key point, then. (none / 0) (#474)
    by Binky the Oracle on Mon Aug 05, 2002 at 01:12:24 PM EST

    I agree with you completely, then, that if the statutes are prohibiting you from doing something that has no impact on other people, especially if it's in your own home or property, - then it's an overreaching statute.

    But then, most statutes these days are completely overreaching.

    [ Parent ]

    Montgomery County Maryland (4.00 / 1) (#449)
    by DeepOmega on Wed Jul 31, 2002 at 10:15:31 AM EST

    Goddamn. I'm really tired of people blowing this out of proportion (across the country) so I'll just point out that this law was not an anti-smoking law. It was an air-quality law. It was intended to hold people responsible for fumes that managed to get into neighbors' homes, such as paint fumes and so forth. The smoking clause was added very late. It was intended to allow a person to complain if their neighbor was smoking enough that the smoke actually managed to cross the property line and get into their house. This was never an anti-smoking law. I find it interesting that you complain about how everything is "sensationalized," yet refer to sensationalized laws in your article.

    Peace and much love...

    The "Truth" About Second Hand Smoke: Which"Truths" Are More Truthful? | 478 comments (430 topical, 48 editorial, 1 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!