It seems like every time I'm watching TV, browsing the web or even walking down the street there are dozens of anti-smoker ads, all attacking smokers as irresponsible people contributing directly to the deaths of millions, and it's really starting to piss me off.
Note that I'm distinguishing between anti-smoking and anti-smoker ads. In my lifetime, I've seen many effective, responsible, reasonable anti-smoking campaigns ranging from the informative (yes, cigarettes are harmful to your body and they CAN kill you) to the imploring (talk to your kids about smoking. Do not buy cigarettes for minors). I have no problem with these ads: I think they contribute to the general awareness of the populace and serve as a reminder to parents and friends that they often have the power to influence a person's decisions regarding their health.
What I have a problem with is this new trend of aggressive ads pointing at smokers and calling them irresponsible, disgusting or even murderers. Recent anti-smoking advertising campaigns have decided to focus on making smokers look like terrible human beings. If you smoke, you smell and taste like a rotting, maggot-infested animal carcass and should be shunned by society! If you smoke, you're contributing to the murder of my grandparents! Give me a break.
These ads are doing more than attempting to discourage smokers: they're attempting to mobilize people AGAINST smokers. It's like there's some force in America using slag campaigns to belittle and eventually eliminate a segment of the populace. Blacks? Jews? Mexicans?
Nope, this time it's the smokers. I honestly wonder at what the motivations and goals of the people behind the ads are. Regardless of what their intentions may be, I know that every time I see one of these ridiculous ads, I just want to smoke more - and possibly put out my cigarettes in the lawns, bedrooms and faces of the people behind these campaigns.
What do you think is motivating these campaigns? Do you think they're effective? How do they make you feel? Am I the only one who finds them obnoxious and offensive?
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
I think you are right that they are going about it the wrong way. Kids want to be well-liked and similar to those that are popular, cool, famous, or rich, etc. In my experience, among lower income kids, smokers are still thought of as being cool and adult-like.
I bet the motivations of the anti-smoker campaigns is to work against that perception.
I agree that anti-smoker ads as opposed to anti-smoking ads are not appropriate because they do attempt to breed disgust of people not behaviors.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
Obviously, the previous ads haven't worked well enough* so they're trying to use peer pressure to make you quit. I don't think they're trying to "eliminate a segment of the populace" so much as trying to modify the behaviour through public shaming. Help any?
*'cause if they did, no one would smoke.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I think you are right that they are going about it the wrong way. Kids want to be well-liked and similar to those that are popular, cool, famous, or rich, etc. In my experience, among lower income kids, smokers are still thought of as being cool and adult-like.
On the one hand, I think you may be right about this: I don't know for certain, as it's been a long time since I've had any experience with being young enough to be influenced and I've never been lower class.
On the other hand, I think it's just as likely they're intensifying the rebellious-cool aspect of underage smoking.
quote:Obviously, the previous ads haven't worked well enough*...
*'cause if they did, no one would smoke.
The NCJRS and NHS have both been releasing statistics for years indicating a decline in the number of smokers in America.
quote:...so they're trying to use peer pressure to make you quit. I don't think they're trying to "eliminate a segment of the populace" so much as trying to modify the behaviour through public shaming. Help any?
Not in the case of anyone I know, no. It's having the polar opposite effect.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
It's not for no good reason that shunning is one of the worst things a society can do to its members.
I don't like it either, but I'll tell you that it doesn't make me sad that smoking is now no longer allowed in any public building in the state. Restaurants, bowling alleys, bars... it's so nice to go out dancing and not have to wear a cloud of cigarette smoke around me for the next few days. It's beyond a nasty habit. It's socially obnoxious and should be discouraged as such. How often do we go on about how reprehensible cell phone talking drivers are? Same thing, IMO. It's not just that they do it, but it has a clear social impact beyond them.
It may feel like 'discrimination', but I'm quickly getting over it.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
What ads are you referring to? I'd always interpreted the Truth and other such ad campaigns to be targetted at Tobacco *Companies*, not individual smokers. But I could be wrong.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The Truth ads are aimed at smokers and potential smokers, to try and open their eyes to the truth about smoking, smoking companies, and what they are doing to themselves and the world around them. They've been wildly effective, and I hope they continue.
I don't recall ever seeing an anti-smoker ad that actually attacked the smoker him/herself as an object of scorn. Depending on how the ad went though, I can't say I'd disagree with the sentiment. I think smoking should be illegal in all public places, be they businesses, parks, or wherever. If you want to smoke, smoke in your own home. Unless you have children. Smoking around children is nothing less than child abuse, and should be punished as such.
Smoking isn't just social rudeness, or a bad habit, it's consuming and then expelling POISON into the air around you. Anyone else in the area who breathes in that poison is harmed by it. I don't think there needs to be an ad campaign specifically against smokers like that, it's a waste of money. Focus on the truth about what smoking is and what it does to potential smokers to get them to not start.
I have little sympathy for smokers for most everything else though.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's like there's some force in America using slag campaigns to belittle and eventually eliminate a segment of the populace. Blacks? Jews? Mexicans?
Were you born a smoker?
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
I really don't think anyone is going to change his or her mind about smoking because of a commercial.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You might be surprised. Recent studies and research have shown the drop-off in new smokers, and the increased numbers of quitters is at least in part to information campaigns, The Truth being labeled as the most successful ever.
They're PSAs, only edgy and in your face. I think they work.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I don't like it either, but I'll tell you that it doesn't make me sad that smoking is now no longer allowed in any public building in the state. Restaurants, bowling alleys, bars... it's so nice to go out dancing and not have to wear a cloud of cigarette smoke around me for the next few days. It's beyond a nasty habit. It's socially obnoxious and should be discouraged as such. How often do we go on about how reprehensible cell phone talking drivers are? Same thing, IMO. It's not just that they do it, but it has a clear social impact beyond them.
So, basically, you don't feel it would be unjust for people annoyed/offended by loud noise at inappropriate times to start smear campaigns against people who bring their babies into public transportation? Or, to give an example with a health issue, what about people with severe animal allergies launching slag campaigns against pet owners' right to walk their dogs or take their animals outside?
The typical response is twofold: perpetrators should be responsible about their actions, and the "victims" need to suck it up and deal. I fail to see why smoking should be treated differently.
quote:I think smoking should be illegal in all public places, be they businesses, parks, or wherever.
So what about in a person's backyard - still their own property, but in an open area?
There are methods of accomplishing an anti-smoking agenda without slag campaigns. The past decade has shown that it is VERY possible to legislate against smokers' rights, which I have much less of a problem with. I don't AGREE with it, but I don't take offense that people are actively legislating against smokers. I live in Seattle, where smoking is now illegal in all enclosed places, public and private, except residences, as is smoking within 25 feet of the entryway of said places, [edit to add] and I don't have a problem with that.
quote:Smoking isn't just social rudeness, or a bad habit, it's consuming and then expelling POISON into the air around you. Anyone else in the area who breathes in that poison is harmed by it.
Until there has been even one well-designed, conclusive study about the effects of second hand smoke on human beings, I maintain that this is propaganda.
Besides, there are tens of thousands of businesses, excluding tobacco companies, across the nation that will retail various forms of poison to you, and the sale of those products isn't even regulated.
What about automobiles and their owners? Car exhaust is far more toxic than cigarette smoke is.
quote:Were you born a smoker?
Would you prefer I use religious examples instead?
[ April 19, 2006, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: erosomniac ]
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by Lyrhawn: I don't recall ever seeing an anti-smoker ad that actually attacked the smoker him/herself as an object of scorn.
Erosomniac is referring, specifically, to these ads, if that helps.
Edit - And if you haven't seen them yet, they're gross. Very very gross. You've been warned.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Until there has been even one well-designed, conclusive study about the effects of second hand smoke on human beings, I maintain that this is propaganda.
quote: Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition, public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation.
Philip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects of secondhand smoke in deciding whether to be in places where secondhand smoke is present, or if they are smokers, when and where to smoke around others. Particular care should be exercised where children are concerned, and adults should avoid smoking around them.
We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places. We also believe that where smoking is permitted, the government should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in non-smokers.
severe respitory distress including pneumonia and bronchitis
developments of asthma or severe worsening of asthma in children and adults
miscarriages in pregnant women
worsening of cystic fibrosis
I'm sorry but, what exactly IS your medical background to refute all these studies and positions?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I am, unfortunately, not seeing links to any studies and positions, just a quoted statement made by Phillip Morris - a corporation repeatedly highlighted by anti-smoking groups as a pack of liars.
Edit to add: and some summaries of studies, but no studies themselves.
Posted by dab (Member # 7847) on :
those ads are gross, but I sort of liked them in a sick way... also, I would never date a smoker... it would be like dating someone with super bad B.O.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Honestly, I will be really pissed if these Lousiaina Clean Air people accomplish their goals. And I don't smoke. I just don't see a problem with people smoking in bars.
-pH
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by erosomniac: Until there has been even one well-designed, conclusive study about the effects of second hand smoke on human beings, I maintain that this is propaganda.
quote:posted by Lyrhawn: I think smoking should be illegal in all public places, be they businesses, parks, or wherever.
It's worth pointing out the difference between secondhand smoke coming from one person, or even a few people, in an outdoor area, and secondhand smoke from many people in a closed room.
While I'm fairly sure that secondhand smoke can, in dense quantities in regular repetition over long periods of time (as in years), cause diseases, I'm very skeptical that it'll do anything to you worse than walking down a street.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I am, unfortunately, not seeing links to any studies and positions, just a quoted statement made by Phillip Morris - a corporation repeatedly highlighted by anti-smoking groups as a pack of liars.
Edit to add: and some summaries of studies, but no studies themselves.
Oh give me a break, Phillip Morris is going to lie, and then be attacked by ANTI SMOKING groups for saying that SMOKING IS BAD FOR YOU!?
What crazed world of logic do you live in where that actually makes sense?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:It's worth pointing out the difference between secondhand smoke coming from one person, or even a few people, in an outdoor area, and secondhand smoke from many people in a closed room.
I should have been clearer in my original statement, as I tentatively agree with this statement, although I'd be interested to see some numbers on the contents of cigarette smoke before and after it has been inhaled. *adds to to-google list*
Also note: I *have* read conclusive studies on the nature of second hand smoke and its effects on existing medical conditions and can agree that second hand smoke frequently aggravates the conditions of people with respiratory illnesses/problems.
Also note: I don't think any of this has any relevance as to my original questions regarding smear campaigns by anti-smoking organizations.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Oh give me a break, Phillip Morris is going to lie, and then be attacked by ANTI SMOKING groups for saying that SMOKING IS BAD FOR YOU!?
I'll clarify: Phillip Morris has been accused (and later convicted) of lying to its current and potential customers, a demographic which, in their eyes, included everybody. Now that they've changed their public image (under court order), do you trust them any more than before? I know I don't.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The contents of after smoke are still labeled as a poisonous carcinogen.
And they were convicted of lying, because they used to say that cigarettes are just fine and won't kill you. Now they are saying they DO kill, and they ARE dangerous.
Your logic is baseless there. Edit to add: Though no, I don't trust them, but when they come out and say "Hey, buy this! Wait, it might KILL YOU!!!" that does give what their saying some credence. Obviously they aren't stupid, no multi-billion dollar company is going to lie and come out and say straight to you that buying their product will lead to a painful death.
And I agree that this doesn't address your issue on smear campaigns. But you're the one advocating fiction on the deadliness of cigarettes. All the more reason why there should be anti-smoking information campaigns out there. People still aren't informed enough.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
Don't you just love America? Where else would a company be required to actively campaign against a product that they are legally allowed to sell.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, and May Complicate Pregnancy.
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health.
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking by Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, and Low Birth Weight.
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Cigar Smoking Can Cause Cancers Of The Mouth And Throat, Even If You Do Not Inhale.
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Cigar Smoking Can Cause Lung Cancer And Heart Disease.
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Tobacco Use Increases The Risk of Infertility, Stillbirth And Low Birth Weight.
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Cigars Are Not A Safe Alternative To Cigarettes.
SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Tobacco Smoke Increases The Risk Of Lung Cancer And Heart Disease, Even In Nonsmokers.
Seriously erosomniac, I don't follow your line of reasoning about second-hand smoke. Anyone who has been anywhere near a smoker can figure out that Second Hand Smoke is unhealthy
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:The contents of after smoke are still labeled as a poisonous carcinogen.
And they were convicted of lying, because they used to say that cigarettes are just fine and won't kill you. Now they are saying they DO kill, and they ARE dangerous.
Your logic is baseless there.
I don't see how it is. My logic is that I'm not going to take anything Phillip Morris says at face value until I've seen evidence that it's true. That evidence has yet to be proven to exist to my satisfaction.
quote:Though no, I don't trust them, but when they come out and say "Hey, buy this! Wait, it might KILL YOU!!!" that does give what their saying some credence. Obviously they aren't stupid, no multi-billion dollar company is going to lie and come out and say straight to you that buying their product will lead to a painful death.
True, but I generally don't take anything someone is forced to say at face value, either.
quote:But you're the one advocating fiction on the deadliness of cigarettes. All the more reason why there should be anti-smoking information campaigns out there. People still aren't informed enough.
First: I'm by no means saying that cigarettes are not deadly to their users. I am, however, saying that the deadliness of second hand smoke has not been demonstrated to me in a convincing fashion. There are lot of organizations saying "second hand smoke will kill you and your kids," but until they've furnished satisfactory evidence in a manner easily accessible by the public , it could just as easily be a ruse to reduce the total number of smokers in the nation, the same way tobacco companies lied and said smoking won't kill you in order to increase sales. (And before the anti-conspiracy theorists start shouting "lunacy" and rolling their eyes - no, this isn't my belief, it's an example.)
I'm not advocating anything; I stated my opinion on the validity/existence of evidence regarding second hand smoke. I agree that there should be more information campaigns regarding smoking so that people can more readily make informed decisions about their own health habits, but I think those campaigns should do more than say "Hey, second hand smoke is bad for you! THIS organization and THIS organization say so!"
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
Ok, I found the adds Juxtapose posted to be gross and offensive. Not enough for me to want to rebel and start smoking, though. But then, smoking has never been one of the vices I find myself particularly tempted by.
I was reminded somewhat of Connie Willis's Bellwether. For any of you who have not read this book, we have various scientists working for a private corporation. The Interdepartmental Assistant, Flip, is lazy and a ditz. But when she gets an assistant (yes, an assistant to the assistant) who is actually competant, people would still rather work with Flip than her assistant because the assistant is **gasp, shock, horror of horrors** a smoker! And they are all worried about breathing in second-secondhand smoke. "That's what Flip calls the air smokers breathe out." (There's more to the book than that, but that is the relevant part.)
I agree that there is a difference between the anti-smoking campaign and the anti-smoker campaign.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I often walk near smokers when I'm headed to class. It generally causes my throat to burn, and sometimes I have trouble breathing. It's generally not a physical blockage really. The air just feels thick. I'm sure it's somewhat psychological. I have the same problem with heavy perfume. I wish people would stop wearing it, or at least stop wearing so much that I can smell it after they've left the room.
And as for health issues such as allergies...there's a reason that most public places don't allow pets. And pet dander probably won't affect people as much outdoors like smoking would. I personally think that it ought to be easier for people to take sick leave, because sick people are also a health hazard. In fact, I'd prefer a few Asian social customs such as bowing instead of shaking hands and wearing a surgical mask when one is sick and has to be out in public to be adopted here in the U.S.
Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
Well, if they can use the cool factor and beautiful people to promote smoking by suggesting that smoking makes you cool (it does not) then I see nothing wrong with anti-smoking campaigns portraying smoking as "gross" and undesirable (it is).
The way I see it, if you smoke, only your mouth smells and tastes like a rotting, maggot-infested animal carcass.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Seriously erosomniac, I don't follow your line of reasoning about second-hand smoke. Anyone who has been anywhere near a smoker can figure out that Second Hand Smoke is unhealthy.
Anyone who has been anywhere near a smoker can decide that second hand smoke is undesirable, but I think it's silly to automatically conclude it's unhealthy. By your logic, anyone who has been subjected to crappy tasting medicine should invariably conclude that it's bad for you.
Of the surgeon general's warnings quoted, only one (possibly two) are related to second hand smoke, and the surgeon general has yet to furnish sufficient conclusive proof to convince me that second hand smoke is directly responsible for causing any medical condition.
The surgeon general's website (hhs.gov) links to MedlinePlus (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/) as a compiled resource for information on the effects of second hand smoke. A quick perusal of these articles (including an excellent fact sheet by the National Cancer Institute found at http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS) shows that while second hand smoke contains carcinogens and has been shown to aggravate many existing medical conditions, there is no conclusive evidence [edit to add]that it is the primary cause of diseases, including cancer[/edit]. Almost every study conducted on second hand smoke has been observational in nature which, as the lead researcher in a recent study of links between second hand smoke and diabetes states, means the study is non-conclusive: it is "the first step toward a conclusion, not the final answer."
[ April 20, 2006, 01:54 AM: Message edited by: erosomniac ]
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Ehh, I think the print ads that say "kissing a smoker is like licking an ashtray" were more succinct and effective than the video ads. Are those ads unfairly discriminatory? Well, I don't know. It does make sense to point out that one of the downsides of smoking is that you get terrible bad breath.
quote:Don't you just love America? Where else would a company be required to actively campaign against a product that they are legally allowed to sell.
It seems to be less active campaigning against smoking in adults (I have seen Phillip Morris commercials telling kids not to smoke) and more informed consent. Just like the drug commercials which tell you about serious side effects. They don't tell you *not* to buy the drug, or cigarettes--they tell you all the bad things that could happen to you if you use them.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:And as for health issues such as allergies...there's a reason that most public places don't allow pets. And pet dander probably won't affect people as much outdoors like smoking would.
The difference is that public places opt to not allow pets, the same way that until more anti-smoking legislation got passed, establishments could opt not to allow smokers. In both cases, however, I suspect the reasons behind not allowing either are more cosmetic than health related.
quote:I personally think that it ought to be easier for people to take sick leave, because sick people are also a health hazard. In fact, I'd prefer a few Asian social customs such as bowing instead of shaking hands and wearing a surgical mask when one is sick and has to be out in public to be adopted here in the U.S.
Agreed.
quote:Well, if they can use the cool factor and beautiful people to promote smoking by suggesting that smoking makes you cool (it does not) then I see nothing wrong with anti-smoking campaigns portraying smoking as "gross" and undesirable (it is).
The limits on this were capped after the indictment of Phillip Morris. My argument is that the same limits should apply to anti-smoking organizations.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:It seems to be less active campaigning against smoking in adults (I have seen Phillip Morris commercials telling kids not to smoke) and more informed consent. Just like the drug commercials which tell you about serious side effects. They don't tell you *not* to buy the drug, or cigarettes--they tell you all the bad things that could happen to you if you use them.
I think this is more a reference to the fact that Phillip Morris, as part of the settlement, is actually heavily funding several anti-smoking campaigns which, unlike drug/alcohol commercials that come with warnings & caveats, are not paired with product advertising.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
eros -
ABEL, E.L. Smoking during pregnancy: A review of effects on growth and development of offspring. Human Biology 52(4):593-625, December 1980. ADLKOFER, F., SCHERER, G., Von HEES, U. Passive smoking. (letter). New England Journal of Medicine 312(11):719-720, March 14, 1985. AKIBA, S., KATO, H., BLOT, W.J. Passive smoking and lung cancer among Japanese women. Cancer Research 46(9):4804-4807, September 1986. ARONOW, W.S. Effect of passive smoking on angina pectoris New England Journal of Medicine 299(1):21-24, July 6, 1978a. ARONOW, W.S. Effects of passive smoking. (letter). New England Journal of Medicine 299(16):897, October 19, 1978b. BACKHOUSE, C.I. Peak expiratory flow in youths with varying cigarette smoking habits. British Medical Journal 1(5954):366-362, February 15, 1975. BARRON, B.A. The effects of misclassification on the estimation of relative risk. Biometrics 33(2):414-418, June 1977. BECK, G.J., DOYLE, C.A., SCHACHTER, E.N. Smoking and lung function. American Review of Respiratory Disease 123(2):149-155 February 1981. BERKEY, C.S., WARE, J.H., DOCKERY, D.W., FERRIS, B.G., Jr., SPEIZER, F.E. Indoor air pollution and pulmonary function growth in preadolescent children. American Journal of Epidemiology 123(2):250-260, February 1986. BEWLEY, B.R., HALIL T., SNAITH, A.H. Smoking by primary schoolchildren: Prevalence and associated respiratory symptoms. British Journal of Preventive and Social Medicine 27(3):150-153, August 1973. BLACK, N. The aetiology of glue ear: A case-control study. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology 9(2):121-133, July 1985. BLAND, M., BEWLEY, B.R., POLLARD, V., BANKS, M.H. Effect of children’s and parents’ smoking on respiratory symptoms. Archives of Disease in Childhood 53(2):100-105, February 1978. BLOT, W.J., MCLAUGHLIN, J.K. Practical issues in the design and conduct of case control studies: Use of next-of-kin interviews. In: Blot, W.J., Hirayama, T., Huel, O.G. (eds). Statistical Issues in Cancer Epidemiology. Hiroshima, Sanei Publishers, 1985, pp. 46-62. BRINTON, L.A., BLOT, W.J., BECKER, J.A., WINN, D.M., BROWDER, J.P., FARMER, J.C., Jr., FRAUMENI, J.F., Jr. A case-control study of cancers of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinus. American Journal of Epidemiology 119(6):896- 906, June 1984. BRUNEKREEF, B., FISCHER, P., REMIJN, B., VAN DER LENDE, R., SCHOUTEN, J., QUANJER, P. Indoor air pollution and its effect on pulmonary funtion of adult nonsmoking women: 3. Passive smoking and pulmonary function. International Journal of Epidemiology 14(2):227-230, June 1985. BRUNNEMANN, K.D., ADAMS, J.D., HO, D.P.S., HOFFMANN, D. The influence of tobacco smoke on indoor atmospheres: 2. Volatile and tobacco-specific nitrosamines in main- and sidestream smoke and their contribution to indoor pollution. Proceedings of the Fourth Joint Conference on Sensing of Environmental Pollutants, New Orleans, 1977. American Chemical Society, 1978, pp. 876-886. BUDIANSKY, S. Food and drug data fudged. Nature 302(5909):560, April 14, 1983. BURCH, P.R.J. Passive smoking and lung cancer. (letter). British Medical Journal 282(6273):1393, April 25, 1981. BURCH, P.R.J. Lifetime passive smoking and cancer risk. (letter). Lancet 1(8433):866, April 13, 1985. BURCH, P.R.J. Passive smoking in adulthood and cancer risk. (letter). American Journal of Epidemiology 123(2):368-369, February 1986. 109 BURCHFIEL, C.M., HIGGINS, M.W., KELLER, J.B., HOWATT, W.F., BUTLER, W.J., HIGGINS, I.T.T. Passive smoking in childhood: Respiratory conditions and pulmonary function in Tecumseh, Michigan. American Review of Respiratory Disease 133(6):966-973, June 1986. BURROWS, B., KNUDSON, R.J., CLINE, M.G., LEBOWITZ, M.D. Quantitative relationships between cigarette smoking and ventilatory function. American Review of Respiratory Disease 115(2):195-205, February 1977. BURROWS, B., KNUDSON, R.J., LEBOWITZ, M.D. The relationship of childhood respiratory illness to adult obstructive airway disease. American Review of Respiratory Disease 115(5):751-769, May 1977. CAMERON, P., KOSTIN, J.S., ZAKS, J.M., WOLFE, J.H., TIGHE, G., OSELETT, B., STOCKER, R., WINTON, J. The health of smokers’ and nonsmokers’ children. Journal of Allergy 43(6):336-341, June 1969. CHAN, W.C., COLBOURNE, M.J., FUNG, S.C., HO, H.C. Bronchial cancer in Hong Kong 1976-1977. British Journal of Cancer 39(2):182-192, February 1979. CHAN, W.C., FUNG, S.C. Lung cancer in nonsmokers in Hong Kong. In: Grundmann, E., Clemmesen, J., Muir, C.S. (eds). Geographical Pathology in Cancer Epidemiology. Cancer Campaign, Vol. 6. New York, Gustav Fischer Verlag, 1982, pp. 199-202. CHARLTON, A. Children’s coughs related to parental smoking. British Medical Journal 288(6431):1647-1649, June 2, 1984. CHEN, Y., LI, W.-X. The effect of passive smoking on children’s pulmonary function in Shanghai. American Journal of Public Health 76(5)515-518, May 1986. COLLEY, J.R.T. Respiratory disease in childhood. British Medical Bulletin 27(1):9-14, January 1971. COLLEY, J.R.T. Respiratory symptoms in children and parental smoking and phlegm production. British Medical Journal 2(5912):201-204, April 27, 1974. COLLEY, J.R.T., HOLLAND, W.W., CORKHILL, R.T. Influence of passive smoking and parental phlegm on pneumonia and bronchitis in early childhood. Lancet 2(7888):1031-1034, November 2, 1974. COLLINS, M.H., MOESSINGER, A.C., KLEINERMAN, J., BASSI, J., ROSSO, P., COLLINS, A.M., JAMES, L.S., BLANC, W.A. Fetal lung hypoplasia associated with maternal smoking: A morphometric analysis. Pediatric Research 19(4):408- 412, April 1985. COMSTOCK, G.W., MEYER, M.B., HELSING, K.J., TOCCKMAN, M.S. Respiratory effects of household exposures to tobacco smoke and gas cooking. American Review of Respiratory Disease 124(2):143-148, August 1981. COODLEY, A. Effects of passive smoking. (letter). New England Journal of Medicine 299(16):897, October 19, 1978. COPELAND, K.T., CHECKOWAY, H., McMICHAEL, A.J., HOLBROOK, R.H. Bias due to misclassification in the estimation of relative risk. American Journal of Epidemiology 105(5):488-495, May 1977. CORREA, P., PICKLE, L.W., FONTHAM, E., LIN, Y., HAENSZEL, W. Passive smoking and lung cancer. Lancet 2(8350):595-597, September 10, 1983. CRIQUI, M.H. Response bias and risk ratios in epidemiologic studies. American Journal of Epidemiology 109(4):394-399, April 1979. DAHMS, T.E., BOLIN, J.F., SLAVIN, R.G. Passive smoking: Effects on bronchial asthma. Chest 80(5)530-534, November 1981. DODGE, R. The effects of indoor pollution on Arizona children. Archives of Environmental Health 37(3):151-155, May-June 1982. DOLL, R., PETO, R. Cigarette smoking and bronchial carcinoma: Dose and time relationships among regular smokers and lifelong non-smokers. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 32(4):303-313, December 1978. 110 DUTAU, G., CORBERAND, J., LEOPHONTE, P., ROCHICCIOLI, P. Manifestations respiratoires liees a l’inhalation passive de fumme de tabac chez l’infant d’age prescolaire [Respiratory signs associated with passive inhalation of tobacco smoke in infants]. Le Poumon et le Coeur 35(2):63-69, 1979. EKWO, E.E., WEINBERGER, M.M., LACHENBRUCH, P.A., HUNTLEY, W.H. Relationship of parental smoking and gas cooking to respiratory disease in children. Chest 84(6):662-668, December 1983. FERGUSSON, D.M., HORWOOD, L.J. Parental smoking and respiratory illness during early childhood: A six year longitudinal study. Pediatric Pulmonology 1(2):99-106, March-April 1985. FERGUSSON, D.M., HORWOOD, L.J., SHANNON, F.T., TAYLOR, B. Parental smoking and lower respiratory illness in the first three years of life. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 35(3):180-184, September 1981. FEYERABEND, C., HIGENBOTTAM, T., RUSSELL, M.A.H. Nicotine concentrations in urine and saliva of smokers and nonsmokers. British Medical Journal 284(6321):1002-1004, April 3, 1982. FOLIART, D., BENOWITZ, N.L., BECKER, C.E. Passive absorption of nicotine in airline flight attendants. (letter). New England Journal of Medicine 308(18):1105, May 5, 1983. FRIEDMAN, G.D. Passive smoking in adulthood and cancer risk. (letter). American Journal of Epidemiology 123(2):367, February 1986. FRIEDMAN, G.D., PETTITI, D.B., BAWOL, R.D. Prevalence and correlates of passive smoking. American Journal of Public Health 73(4):401-405, April 1983. GARFINKEL, L. Time trends in lung cancer mortality among nonsmokers and a note on passive smoking. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 66(6):1061-1066, June 1981. GARFINKEL, L., AUERBACH, O., JOUBERT, L. Involuntary smoking and lung cancer: A case-control study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 75(3):463- 469, September 1985. GARLAND, C., BARRETT-CONNOR, E., SUAREZ, L., CRIQUI, M.H., WINGARD, D.L. Effects of passive smoking on ischemic heart disease mortality of nonsmokers: A prospective study. American Journal of Epidemiology 121(5):645-650, May 1985. GILLIS, C.R., HOLE, D.J., HAWTHORNE, V.M., BOYLE, P. The effect of environmental tobacco smoke in two urban communities in the west of Scotland. European Journal of Respiratory Diseases 65(Suppl. 133):121-126, 1984. GOLD, E., GORDIS, L., TONASCIA, J., SZKLO, M. Risk factors for brain tumors in children. American Journal of Epidemiology 109(3):309-319, March 1979. GORDIS, L. Should dead cases be matched to dead controls? American Journal of Epidemiology 115(1):1-5, January 1982. GORTMAKER, S.L., WALKER, D.K., JACOBS, F.H., RUCH-ROSS, H. Parental smoking and the risk of childhood asthma. American Journal of Public Health 72(6):574-579, June 1982. GREENBERG, R.A., HALEY, N.J., ETZEL, R.A., LODA, F.A. Measuring the exposure of infants to tobacco smoke: Nicotine and cotinine in urine and saliva. New England Journal of Medicine 310(17):1075-1078, April 26, 1984. GREENLAND, S. The effect of misclassification in the presence of covariates. American Journal of Epidemiology 112(4)564-569, October 1980. GRUFFERMAN, S., WANG, H.H., DeLONG, E.R., KIMM, S.Y.S., DELZELL, E.S., FALLETA, J.M. Environmental factors in the etiology of rhabdomyosarcoma in childhood. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 68(1):107-113, January 1982. GRUNDMANN, E., MULLER, K.-M., WINTER, K.D., STERLING, T.D. Non-smoking wives of heavy smokers have a higher risk of lung cancer. (Letter). British Medical Journal 282(6270):1156, April 4, 1981. 111 HALEY, N.J., HOFFMANN, D. Analysis for nicotine and cotinine in hair to determine cigarette smoker status. Clinical Chemistry 31(10):1598-1600, October 1985. HAMMOND. E.C., SELIKOFF, I.J. Passive smoking and lung cancer with comments on two new papers. Environmental Research 24(2):444-452, April 1981. HARLAP, S., DAVIES, A.M. Infant admissions to hospital and maternal smoking. Lancet 1(7857):529-532, March 30, 1974. HARRIS, J.E., DuMOUCHEL, W.H. Nonsmoking wives of heavy smokers have a higher risk of lung cancer. (letter). British Medical Journal 283(6296):915, October 3, 1981. HASSELBLAD, V., HUMBLE, C.G., GRAHAM, M.G., ANDERSON, H.S. Indoor environmental determinants of lung function in children. American Review of Respiratory Disease 123(5):479-485. May 1981. HENDERSON, B.E., BENTON, B., JING, J., YU, MC., PIKE, M.C. Risk factors for cancer of the testis in young men. International Journal of Cancer 23(5):598-602. May 1979. HIGGINS, I. Lifetime passive smoking and cancer risk. (letter). Lancet 1(8433):866- 867, April 13, 1985. HIGGINS, M.W., KJELSBERG, M., METZNER, H. Characteristics of smokers and nonsmokers in Tecumseh Michigan. 1: The distribution of smoking habits in persons and families and their relationship to social characteristics. American Journal of Epidemiology 86(1):45-59, July 1967. HILLER, F.C. Deposition of sidestream cigarette smoke in the human respiratory tract. Preventive Medicine 13(6):602-607, November 1984 HIRAYAMA, T. Non-smoking wives of heavy smokers have a higher risk of lung cancer: A study from Japan. British Medical Journal 282(6259):183-185, January 17, 1981a. HIRAYAMA, T. Passive smoking and lung cancer. (letter). British Medical Journal 282(6273):1393-1394, April 25, 1981b. HIRAYAMA. T. Nonsmoking wives of smokers have a higher risk of lung cancer. (letter). British Medical Journal 283(6296):916-917, October 3, 1981c. HIRAYAMA, T. Nonsmoking wives of smokers have a higher risk of lung cancer. (letter). British Medical Journal 283(6304):1465-1466, November 28, 1981d. HIRAYAMA, T. Passive smoking and lung cancer: Consistency of association. (letter). Lancet 2(8364):1425-1426, December 17, 1983. HIRAYAMA, T. Cancer mortality in nonsmoking women with smoking husbands based on a large-scale cohort study in Japan. Preventive Medicine 13(6):680-690. November 1984a. HIRAYAMA, T. Lung cancer in Japan: Effects of nutrition and passive smoking. In: Mizell, M., Correa, P. (eds). Lung Cancer: Causes and Prevention. Deerfield Beach, Florida, VCH, 1984b, pp. 175-195. HIRAYAMA, T. Passive smoking: A new target of epidemiology. Journal of Experimental Clinical Medicine 10(4):287-293, 1985. HOEGG. U.R. Cigarette smoke in closed spaces. Environmental Health Perspectives (2):177-128, October 1972. HOFFMANN, D., HALEY, N.J., ADAMS, J.D.. BRUNNEMANN, K.D. Tobacco sidestream smoke: Uptake by nonsmokers. Preventive Medicine 13(6):608-617, November 1984. HORWOOD, L.J., FERGUSSON, D.M.. SHANNON, F.T. Social and familial factors in the development of early childhood asthma. Pediatrics 75(5):859-868, May 1985. HUGOD, C., HAWKINS, L.H., ASTRUP, P. Exposure of passive smokers to tobacco smoke constituents. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 42(1):21-29, 1978. 112 INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER. Tobacco Smoking. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, Vol. 38. Lyon, IARC, 1986, pp. 163-314. IVERSON, M., BIRCH, L., LUNDQVIST, G.R., ELBROND, O. Middle ear effusion in children and the indoor environment: An epidemiological study. Archives of Environmental Health 40(2):74-79, March-April 1985. JARVIS, M.J., TUNSTALLPEDOE, H., FEYERABEND, C., VESEY, C., SALOOJEE, Y. Biochemical markers of smoke absorption and self-reported exposure to passive smoking. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 38(4):335-339, December 1984. JONES, J.R., HIGGINS, I.T.T., HIGGINS, M.W., KELLER, J.B. Effects of cooking fuels on lung function in nonsmoking women. Archives of Environmental Health 38(4):219-222, July-August 1983. KABAT, G.C., WYNDER, E.L. Lung cancer in nonsmokers. Cancer 53(5):1214-1221, March 1, 1984. KANNEL, W.B. Update on the role of cigarette smoking in coronary artery disease. American Heart Journal 101(3):319-328, March 1981. KASUGA, H., HASEBE, A., OSAKA, F., MATSUKI, H. Respiratory symptom in school children and the role of passive smoking. Tokai Journal of Experimental and Clinical Medicine 4(2):101-114, April 1979. KAUFFMANN, F., DOCKERY, D.W., SPEIZER, F.E., FERRIS, B.G., Jr. Respiratory symptoms and lung function in women with passive and active smoking. (abstract). American Review of Respiratory Disease 133(4, part 2):A157, April 1986. KAUFFMANN, F., TESSIER, J.-F., ORIOL, P. Adult passive smoking in the home environment: A risk factor for chronic airflow limitation. American Journal of Epidemiology 117(3):269-280, March 1983. KENTNER, M., TRIEBIG, G., WELTLE, D. The influence of passive smoking on pulmonary function: A study of 1351 office workers. Preventive Medicine 13(6)656- 669, November 1984. KNOTH, A., BOHN, H., SCHMIDT, F. Passiv rauchen als Lungenkrebs-Ursache bei Nichtraucherinnen [Passive smoking as a causal factor of bronchial carcinoma in female nonsmokers]. Medizinische Klinik 78(2):66-69, February 4, 1983. KOO, L.C., HO, J.H.-C., LEE, N. An analysis of some risk factors for lung cancer in Hong Kong. International Journal of Cancer 35(2):149-155, February 15, 1985. KOO, L.C., HO, J.H.-G., SAW, D. Active and passive smoking among female lung cancer patients and controls in Hong Kong. Journal of Experimental and Clinical Cancer Research 4(2):367-375, October-December 1983. KOO, L.C., HO, J.H.G., SAW, D. Is passive smoking an added risk factor for lung cancer in Chinese women? Journal of Experimental and Clinical Cancer Research 3(3):277-283, July-September 1984. KORNEGAY, K.R., KASTENBAUM, M.A. Non-smoking wives of heavy smokers have a higher risk of lung cancer. (letter). British Medical Journal 283(6296):914, October 3, 1981. KRAEMER, M.J., RICHARDSON, M.A., WEISS, N.S., FURUKAWA, C.T., SHAPIRO, G.G., PIERSON, W.E., BIERMAN, C.W. Risk factors for persistent middle-ear effusions: Otitis media, catarrh, cigarette smoke exposure, and atopy. Journal of the American Medical Association 249(8):1022-1025, February 25, 1983. LEBOWITZ, M.D. Environmental tobacco smoke: 3.3. The effects of environmental tobacco smoke exposure and gas stoves on daily peak flow rates in asthmatic and non-asthmatic families. European Journal of Respiratory Diseases 65(Suppl. 133):90-97, 1984. LEBOWITZ, M.D., ARMET, D.B., KNUDSON, R. The effect of passive smoking on pulmonary function in children. Environment International 8(1-6):371-373, 1982. LEBOWITZ, M.D., BURROWS, B. Respiratory symptoms related to smoking habits of family adults. Chest 69(1):48-50, January 1976. 113 LEE, P.N. Non-smoking wives of heavy smokers have a higher risk of lung cancer. (letter). British Medical Journal 283(6304):1465-1466, November 28, 1981. LEE, P.N. Passive smoking. (letter). Lancet 1(8275):791, April 3, 1982a. LEE, P.N. Passive smoking. Food and Cosmetics Toxicology 20(2):223-229, April 1982b. LEE, P.N. Lifetime passive smoking and cancer risk. (letter). Lancet 1(8443):1444, June 22, 1985. LEE, P.N., CHAMBERLAIN, J., ALDERSON, M.R. Relationship of passive smoking to risk of lung cancer and other smoking-associated diseases. British Journal of Cancer 54(1):97-105, July 1986. LEEDER, S.R., CORKHILL, R.T., IRWIG, L.M., HOLLAND, W.W. Influence of family factors on asthma and wheezing during the first five years of life. British Journal of Preventive and Social Medicine 30(4):213-218, December 1976a. LEEDER, S.R., CORKHILL, R.T., IRWIG, L.M., HOLLAND, W.W. Influence of family factors on the incidence of lower respiratory illness during the first year of life. British Journal of Preventive and Social Medicine 30(4):203-212, December 1976b. LEHNERT, G. Roundtable discussion. Preventive Medicine 13(6):730-746, November 1984. LERCHEN, M.L., SAMET, J.M. An assessment of the validity of questionnaire responses provided by a surviving spouse. American Journal of Epidemiology 123(3):481-489, March 1986. LIM, T.P.K. Airway obstruction among high school students. American Review of Respiratory Disease 108(4):985-988, October 1973. MacDONALD, E.J. Nonsmoking wives of heavy smokers have a higher risk of lung cancer. (letter). British Medical Journal 283(6296):917, October 3, 1981a. MacDONALD, E.J. Nonsmoking wives of heavy smokers have a higher risk of lung cancer. (letter). British Medical Journal 283(6304):1465, November 28, 1981b. MANNING, M.D., CARROLL, B.E.. Some epidemiological aspects of leukemia in children. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 19(6):1087-1094, December 1957. MANTEL, N. Nonsmoking wives of heavy smokers have a higher risk of lung cancer. (letter). British Medical Journal 283(6296):914-915, October 3, 1981. MANTEL, N. Passive smoking in adulthood and cancer risk. (letter). American Journal of Epidemiology 123(2):367-368, February 1986. MARTINEZ, F., ANTOGNONI, G., MACRI, F., LEBOWITZ, M., RONCHETTI, R. Distribution of bronchial responsiveness to a constrictive drug in a random pediatric population sample. (abstract). American Review of Respiratory Disease 131(4, part 2):A242, April 1985. MATSUKURA, S., HAMADA, H., SEINO, Y., MURANAKA, H., HIGASHI, E. Passive smoking. (letter). New England Journal of Medicine 312(11):720-721, March 14, 1985. MATSUKURA, S., TAMINATO, T., KITANO, N., SEINO, Y., HAMADA, H., UCHIHASHI, M., NAKAJIMA, H., HIRATA, Y. Effects of environmental tobacco smoke on urinary cotinine excretion in nonsmokers: Evidence for passive smoking. New England Journal of Medicine 311(13):828-832, September 27, 1984. McCONNOCHIE, K.M., ROGHMANN, K.J. Bronchiolitis as a possible cause of wheezing in childhood: New evidence. Pediatrics 74(1):1-10, July 1984. McCONNOCHIE, K.M., ROGHMANN, K.J. Predicting clinically significant lower respiratory tract illness in childhood following mild bronchiolitis. American Journal of Diseases of Children 139(6):625-631, June 1985. MURRAY, A.B., MORRISON, B.J. The effect of cigarette smoke from the mother on bronchial responsiveness and severity of symptoms in children with asthma. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 77(4):575-581, April 1986. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1983. 114 NEUTEL, C.I., BUCK, C. Effect of smoking during pregnancy on the risk of cancer in children. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 47(1):59-63, July 1971. O’CONNOR, G., WEISS, S.T., TAGER, I., SPEIZER, F.E. The effect of passive smoking on nonspecific bronchial responsiveness in a population sample of children and young adults. (abstract). Clinical Research 34(2):581A, April 1986. PATHAK, D.R., SAMET, J.M., HUMBLE, C.G., SKIPPER, B.J. Determinants of lung cancer risk in cigarette smokers in New Mexico. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 76(4):597-604, April 1986. PEDREIRA, F.A., GUANDOLO, V.L., FEROLI, E.J., MELLA, G.W., WEISS, I.P. Involuntary smoking and incidence of respiratory illness during the first year of life. Pediatrics 75(3):594-597, March 1985. PERSHAGEN, G., ZDENEK, H., SVENSSON, C. Passive smoking and lung cancer in Swedish women. American Journal of Epidemiology, in press. PETERS, J.M., FERRIS, B.G., Jr. Smoking, pulmonary function, and respiratory symptoms in a college-age group. American Review of Respiratory Disease 95(5):774-782, May 1967. PICKLE, L.W., BROWN, L.M., BLOT, W.J. Information available from surrogate respondents in case-control interview studies. American Journal of Epidemiology 118(1):99-108, July 1983. PIMM, P.E., SILVERMAN, F., SHEPHARD, R.J. Physiological effects of acute passive exposure to cigarette smoke. Archives of Environmental Health 33(4):201-213, July-August 1978. PITTENGER, D.J. Passive smoking. (letter). New England Journal of Medicine 312(11):720, March 14, 1985. PRESTON-MARTIN, S., YU, M.C., BENTON, B., HENDERSON, B.E. N-nitroso compounds and childhood brain tumors: A case-control study. Cancer Research 42(12):5240-5245, December 1982. PULLAN, C.R., HEY, E.N. Wheezing, asthma, and pulmonary dysfunction 10 years after infection with respiratory syncytial virus in infancy. British Medical Journal 284(6330):1665-1669, June 5, 1982. PUKANDER, J., LUOTGNEN, J., TIMONEN, M., KARMA, P. Risk factors affecting the occurrence of acute otitis media among 2-3-year-old urban children. Acta Otolaryngolica 100(34):26&265, September-October 1985. RANTAKALLIO, P. Relationship of maternal smoking to morbidity and mortality of the child up to the age of five. Acta Paediatrica Scandinavica 67(5):621-631, September 1978. RAWBONE, R.G., KEELING, C.A., JENKINS, A., GUZ, A. Cigarette smoking among secondary school children in 1975: Prevalence of respiratory symptoms, knowledge of health hazards, and attitudes to smoking and health. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 32(1):53-58, March 1978. REPACE, J.L., LOWREY, A.H. A quantitative estimate of nonsmokers’ lung cancer risk from passive smoking. Environment International 11(1):3-22, 1985. ROBINSON, B.F. Effects of passive smoking. (letter). New England Journal of Medicine 299(16):896, October 19, 1978. RUSH, D. Respiratory symptoms in a group of American secondary school students: The overwhelming association with cigarette smoking. International Journal of Epidemiology 3(2):153-165, June 1974. RUSSELL, M.A.H., FEYERABEND C. Blood and urinary nicotine in nonsmokers. Lancet 7900(1):179-181, January 25, 1975. RUSSELL, M.A.H., JARVIS, M.J., WEST, R.J. Use of urinary nicotine concentrations to estimate exposure and mortality from passive smoking in non-smokers. British Journal of Addiction 81:275-281, 1986. RUTSCH, M. Non-smoking wives of heavy smokers have a higher risk of lung cancer. (letter). British Medical Journal 282(6268):985, March 21, 1981. 115 SACKETT, D.L. Bias in analytic research. Journal of Chronic Diseases 32(1-2):5163, 1979. SAID, G., ZALOKAR, J., LELLOUCH, J., PATOIS, E. Parental smoking related to adenoidectomy and tonsillectomy in children. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 32(2):97-101, June 1978. SALOOJEE, Y., VESEY, C.J., COLE, P.V., RUSSELL, M.A.H. Carboxyhemoglobin and plasma thiocyanate: Complementary indicators of smoking behaviour? Thorax 37(7):521-525, July 1982. SAMET, J.M., TAGER I.B., SPEIZER, F.E. The relationship between respiratory illness in childhood and chronic air-flow obetruction in adulthood. American Review of Respiratory Disease 127(4):508-523, April 1983. SANDLER, D.P., EVERSON, R.B., WILCOX, A.J. Passive smoking in adulthood and cancer risk. American Journal of Epidemiology 121(1):37-48, January 1985. SANDLER, D.P., EVERSON, R.B., WILCOX, A.J. Passive smoking in adulthood and cancer risk. (letter). American Journal of Epidemiology 123(2):369-370, February 1986. SANDLER, D.P., EVERSON, R.B., WILCOX, A.J., BROWDER, J.P. Cancer risk in adulthood from early life exposure to parents’ smoking. American Journal of Public Health 75(5):487-492, May 1985. SANDLER, D.P., WILCOX, A.J., EVERSON, R.B. Cumulative effects of lifetime passive smoking on cancer risk. Lancet 1(8424):312-314, February 9, 1985a. SANDLER, D.P., WILCOX, A.J., EVERSON, R.B. Lifetime passive smoking and cancer risk. (letter). Lancet 1(8433):867, April 13, 1985b. SCHENKER, M.B., SAMET, J.M., SPEIZER, F.E. Effect of cigarette tar content and smoking habits on respiratory symptoms in women. American Review of Respiratory Disease 125(6)684-690, June 1982. SCHENKER, M.B., SAMET, J.M., SPEIZER, F.E. Risk factors for childhood respiratory disease: The effect of host factors and home environmental exposures. American Review of Respiratory Disease 128(6):1038-1043, December 1983. SCHILLING, R.S.F., LETAI, A.D., HUI, S.L., BECK, G.J., SCHOENBERG, J.B., BOUHUYS, A.H. Lung function, respiratory disease, and smoking in families. American Journal of Epidemiology 106(4):274-283, October 1977. SCHLESSELMAN, J.J. Case-Control Studies: Design, Conduct, Analysis. Monographs in Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Vol. 2. New York, Oxford University Press, 1982. SCHMELTZ, I., HOFFMANN, D., WYNDER, E.L. The influence of tobacco smoke on indoor atmospheres: I. An overview. Preventive Medicine 4(1):66-82, March 1975. SEELY, J.E., ZUSKIN, E., BOUHUYS, A. Cigarette smoking: Objective evidence for lung damage in teen-agers. Science 172(3984):741-743, May 14, 1971. SHEPHARD, R.J., COLLINS, R., SILVERMAN, F. “Passive” exposure of asthmatic subjects to cigarette smoke. Environmental Research 20(2):392-402, December 1979. SIMS, D.G., DOWNHAM, M.A.P.S., GARDNER, P.S., WEBB, J.K.G., WEIGHTMAN, D. Study of 8-year-old children with a history of respiratory syncytial virus bronchiolities in infancy. British Medical Journal 1(6104):11-14, January 7, 1978. SPRIZER, F.E., FERRIS, B., Jr., BISHOP, Y.M.M., SPENGLER, J. Respiratory disease rates and pulmonary function in children associated with NO2 exposure. American Review of Respiratory Disease 121(1):3-10, January 1980. SPEIZER, F.E., TAGER, I.B. Epidemiology of chronic mucus hypersecretion and obstructive airways disease. Epidemiologic Reviews 1:124-142, 1979. SPINACI, S., AROSSA, W., BURGIANI, M., NORTALE, P., BUCCA, C., DeCONDUSSION, E. The effects of air pollution on the respiratory health of children: A crosssectional study. Pediatric Pulmonology 1(5):262-266, 1985. STERLING, T.D. Non-smoking wives of heavy smokers have a higher risk of lung cancer. (letter). British Medical Journal 282(6270):1156, April 4, 1981. 116 STEWART, A., WEBB, J., HEWITT, D. A survey of childhood malignancies. British Medica1 Journal 50(86):1495-1508, June 18, 1958. STJERNFELDT, M., BERGLUND, K., LINDSTEN, J., LUDVIGSSON, J. Maternal smoking during pregnancy and risk of childhood cancer. Lancet 1(8494):1350-1352, June 14, 1986. STOBER, W. Lung dynamics and uptake of smoke constituents by nonsmokers: A survey. Preventive Medicine 13(6):589-601, November 1984. SUTTON, G.C. Passive smoking and lung cancer. (letter). British Medicial Journal 282(6265):733, February 28, 1981. SVENDSEN, K.H., KULLER, L.H., NEATON, J.D. Effects of passive smoking in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT). Circulation, Part II, No. 4, October 1985. TAGER, I.B. Passive smoking and respiratory health in children: Sophistry or cause for concern? American Review of Respiratory Disease 133(6):959-961, June 1986. TAGER, LB., MUNOZ, A., ROSNER, B., WEISS, S.T., CAREY, V., SPEIZER, F.E. Effect of cigarette smoking on the pulmonary function of children and adolescents. American Review of Respiratory Disease 131(5):752-759, May 1985. TAGER, I.B., WEISS, S.T., MUNOZ, A., ROSNER, B., SPEIZER, F.E. Longitudinal study of the effects of maternal smoking on pulmonary function in children. New England Journal of Medicine 309(12):699-703, September 22, 1983. TAGER. I.B., WEISS, S.T., ROSNER, B., SPEIZER, F.E. Effect of parental cigarette smoking on the pulmonary function of children. American Journal of Epidemiology 110(1):15-26, July 1979. TASHKIN, D., CLARK, V.A., SIMMONS, M., REEMS, C., COULSON, A.H., BOURQUE, L.B., SAYRE, J.W., DETELS, R., ROKAW, S. The UCLA population studies of chronic obstructive respiratory disease: 7. Relationship between parental smoking and children’s lung function. American Review of Respiratory Disease 129(6):891-897, June 1984. TRICHOPOULOS, D. Passive smoking and lung cancer. (letter). Lancet 1(8378):684, March 24, 1984. TRICHOPOULGS, D., KALANDIDI, A., SPARROS, L. Lung cancer and passive smoking: Conclusion of Greek study. (letter). Lancet 2(8351):677-678, September 17, 1983. TRICHOPOULGS, D., KALANDIDI, A., SPARROS, L., MacMAHON, B. Lung cancer and passive smoking. International Journal of Cancer 27(1):1-4, January 15, 1981. TSOKOS, C.P. Non-smoking wives of heavy smokers have a higher risk of lung cancer. (letter). British Medical Journal 283(6394):1464-1465, November 28, 1981. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE. Smoking and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. DHEW Pub. No. (PHS)79-50066. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office on Smoking and Health, 1979. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. The Health Consequences of Smoking for Women: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office on Smoking and Health, 1986. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. The Health Consequences of Smoking: Cancer. A Report of the Surgeon General. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS)82-59179. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office on Smoking and Health, 1982. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. The Health Consequences of Smoking: Cardiovascular Disease. A Report of the Surgeon General. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS)84-50294. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office on Smoking and Health, 1983. 117 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. The Health Consequences of Smoking: Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease. A Report of the Surgeon General. DHHS Pub. No. (PHS)84-50205. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office on Smoking and Health, 1984. U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE. Smoking and Health. Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service. PHS Pub. No. 1103. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, 1964. VAN STEENSEL-MOLL, H.A., VALKENBURG, H.A., VANDENBROUCKE, J.P. Are maternal fertility problems related to childhood leukaemia? International Journal of Epidemiology 14(4):555-559, December 1985. VEDAL, S., SCHENKER, M.B., SAMET, J.M., SPEIZER, F.E. Risk factors for childhood respiratory disease: Analysis of pulmonary function. American Review of Respiratory Disease 130(2):187-192, August 1984. VUTUC, C. Quantitative aspects of passive smoking and lung cancer. Preventive Medicine 13(6):698-704, November 1984. WAITE, C.L. Effects of passive smoking. (letter). New England Journal of Medicine 299(16):897, October 19, 1978. WAKEHAN, H. Effects of passive smoking. (letter). New England Journal of Medicine 299(16):896, October 19, 1978. WALD, N.J., BOREHAM, J., BAILEY, A., RITCHIE, C., HADDOW, J.E., KNIGHT, G. Urinary cotinine as marker of breathing other people’s tobacco smoke. (letter). Lancet 1(8370):230-231, January 28, 1984. WALD, N.J., IDLE, M., BOREHAM, J., BAILEY, A. Carbon monoxide in breath in relation to smoking and carboxyhaemoglobin levels. Thorax 36(5):366-369, May 1981. WALD, N.J., RITCHIE, C. Validation of studies on lung cancer in nonsmokers married to smokers. (letters). Lancet 1(8385):1067, May 12, 1984. WALTER, S., NANCY, N.R., COLLIER, C.R. Changes in forced expiratory spirogram in young male smokers. American Review of Respiratory Disease 119(5):717-724, 1974. WARE, J.H., DOCKERY, D.W., SPIRO, A. III, SPEIZER, F.E., FERRIS, B.G., Jr. Passive smoking, gas cooking, and respiratory health of children living in six cities. American Review of Respiratory Disease 129(3):366-374, March 1984. WEINBERGER, S.E., WEISS, S.T. Pulmonary diseases. In: Burrow, G.N., Ferris, T.F. (eds). Medical Complications During Pregnancy. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, W.B. Saunders, 1981, pp. 405-434. WEISS, S.T., TAGER, I.B., MUNOZ, A., SPEIZER, F.E. The relationship of respiratory infections in early childhood to the occurrence of increased levels of bronchial responsiveness and atopy. American Review of Respiratory Disease 131(4):573-578, April 1985. WEISS, ST., TAGER, I.B., SPEIZER, F.E., ROSNER, B. Persistent wheeze: Its relation to respiratory illness, cigarette smoking, and level of pulmonary function in a population sample of children. American Review of Respiratory Disease 122(5):697- 707, November 1980. WHITE, J.R., FROEB, H.F. Small-airways dysfunction in nonsmokers chronically exposed to tobacco smoke. New England Journal of Medicine 302(13):720-723, March 27, 1986. WHITTEMORE, A., ALTSHULER, B. Lung cancer incidence in cigarette smokers: Further analysis of Doll and Hill’s data for British physicians. Biometrics 32(4):805-816, December 1976. WIEDEMANN, H.P., MAHLER, D.A., LOKE J., VIRGULTO, J.A., SNYDER, P., MATTHAY, R.A. Acute effects of passive smoking on lung function and airway reactivity in asthmatic subjects. Chest 89(2):180-185, February 1986. 118 WOOLCOCK, A.J., PEAT, J.K., LEEDER, S.R., BLACKBURN, C.R.B. (eds.). The development of lung function in Sydney children: Effects of respiratory illness and smoking. A ten year study. European Journal of Respiratory Diseases 65(Suppl. 132):1-137, 1964. WU, A.H., HENDERSON, B.E., PIKE, M.C., YU, M.C. Smoking and other risk factors for lung cancer in women. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 74(4):747-751, April 1965. WYNDER, E.L., HOFFMANN, D. Tobacco and Tobacco Smoke: Studies in Experimental Carcinogenesis. New York, Academic Press, 1967. WYNDER, E.L. STELLMAN, S.D. Comparative epidemiology of tobacco-related cancers. Cancer Research 37(12):4608-4622, December 1977. YARNELL, J.W.G., ST. LEGER, A.S. Respiratory illness, maternal smoking habit and lung function in children. British Journal of Diseases of the Chest 73(3):230-236, July 1979.
Feel free to look them up. Not everything is available online. I've got tons more, just gimme awhile to find them and post them.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I've actually read about a fifth (okay, more like a tenth) of what you've quoted there, Lyrhawn, e.g.
U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE. Smoking and Health. Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service. PHS Pub. No. 1103. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, 1964.
TAGER, I.B. Passive smoking and respiratory health in children: Sophistry or cause for concern? American Review of Respiratory Disease 133(6):959-961, June 1986.
GREENBERG, R.A., HALEY, N.J., ETZEL, R.A., LODA, F.A. Measuring the exposure of infants to tobacco smoke: Nicotine and cotinine in urine and saliva. New England Journal of Medicine 310(17):1075-1078, April 26, 1984.
and they were inconclusive. None of them offered more than an observational study and a steaming pile of correlations.
Edit to add: I will, however, eventually get around to reading them all, so thanks for the list.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I have dozens (maybe hundreds) more if you want them.
Edit to add: Here's a large chunk of the rest of what I have, and it's mostly stuff after 1981, whereas the above post is all stuff before 1986.
When you're done with all that, and if you're still not convinced, come back for more.
Posted by dab (Member # 7847) on :
shigosei, one thing about asian cultures that you are omitting is that (at least in Japan) unless you are on your death bed you are expected to show up for work. The facemasks are actually really helpful in terms of not only spreading the disease, but also getting better... the humidity that you rebreath is supposed to help with resperatory illness. After living in Tokyo for a year, I now find living in NYC very gross, and always feel like i am surrounded by germs... especally on the subway.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
eros: Some research is not ethical to do. You'd never get a review board to approve an experiment (not correlational) in which the researchers expose subjects to known carcingens from the open, burning end of a cigarette just to see if it causes them cancer or other health problems like closing their mouth over that burning cigarette would.
I think mounds of correlational data make a strong enough case. I, for one, am not willing to give people cancer just to prove to you that second-hand smoke causes cancer.
Edit: If second hand smoke is not the causal variable that would explain the correlational data, what would you propose as the possible variable that could account for the corrrelational data?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
What about current medical testing, though?
"Oh, we're pretty sure this drug will lower your chances of a heart attack by 70%. So we're going to give it to these people and not give it to these other people, both of whom currently have the same factors for heart attacks."
Well...you've still kinda caused the people in the control group to have heart attacks.
-pH
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
pH: I guess your comment was for me. The difference is in the pharmaceutical study, one does not know whether the experimental drug will help or not. That is what is currently under investigation. If they already knew then they would have no need to do the study.
In the second hand smoking case, we already know ingredients in cigarettes have been shown to cause cancer. Why would we expect putting one's mouth over the cigarette is that much more dangerous than holding our faces two feet from the smoke and breathing it in.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by enochville: pH: I guess your comment was for me. The difference is in the pharmaceutical study, one does not know whether the experimental drug will help or not. That is what is currently under investigation. If they already knew then they would have no need to do the study.
In the second hand smoking case, we already know ingredients in cigarettes have been shown to cause cancer. Why would we expect putting one's mouth over the cigarette is that much more dangerous than holding our faces two feet from the smoke and breathing it in.
Because there is no evidence that there aren't tons and tons of other factors involved in the development of cancer that are NOT second-hand smoke exposure.
I believe studies were done concerning whether or not sealants increase the likelihood of breast cancer.
(Random thought) Did they ever actually do a study on antidepressants causing suicidal tendencies in children and teens, or did they just say, "Oh, it happened to this one kid, so it can happen to your kid, too?"
-pH
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You kind of set up an impossible standard pH.
You're saying that if you prove that Poison 1 has Effect A, you also have to prove that Poisons 2-10,000,000 don't have Effect A.
I don't understand the logic. Inhaling carcinogens causes cancer, second hand smoke contains levels of carcinogens (and other bad things) that lead to cancer and other diseases. What more do you need to know that hasn't already been covered by the hundreds upon hundreds of studies already done on the subject?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Dab, I'm somewhat aware of the workaholic attitude in Japan. I'm not saying I wanted to adopt all of Asian culture. Just the bowing and masks
pH, I think the suicidal tendencies in teens may have been discovered during studies of the efficacy of the drug in treating depression.
A quick of pubmed central with the words "SSRI" and suicide turned up a few articles and commentary on the issue (It might be quicker to find a good commentary and then look at the bottom for the peer-reviewed papers.) Anyhow, this study seems to indicate that the data were based on self-reporting of suicidal thoughts by people on a particular drug.
My hypothesis, based pretty much on no medical knowledge or expertise whatsoever, is that SSRIs have all sorts of weird side effects when you first start taking them. The antidepressant effect doesn't kick in until later. So you're depressed *and* you feel like crap.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Because there is no evidence that there aren't tons and tons of other factors involved in the development of cancer that are NOT second-hand smoke exposure.
In order to be able to draw conclusions from data where there are numerous possible causes for various effects, you have to control for those other effects in your statistical analysis of the data. Once you have done so, if there is still a strong correlative relationship between the cause and effect of interest, you can start to think about suggesting that there may be a causative relationship there.
In this case, with the number studies showing a correlative relationship -- and this isn't a no-brainer, here, since the suggestion is that long-term exposure to known carcinogens increases risk of cancer -- the likelihood of a causative relationship is high.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I'm by no means saying that cigarettes are not deadly to their users. I am, however, saying that the deadliness of second hand smoke has not been demonstrated to me in a convincing fashion.
Tough. My firing a rifle in the general direction of a group of people may not be responsible for their gunshot wound, but that doesn't make it alright for me to go around shooting. It's selfish rationalization for me to say, "I like to shoot near people, and I won't stop until someone conclusively proves that my bullets did the damage". Of course, because of ballistics that's a lot easier to prove than the effects of second hand smoke. But the point is that you don't continue to do something that you know is harmful to those around you just because, in your mind, there's an ever so slight chance that it's not that harmful.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
I have to say, this is a pretty absurd argument.
I think that eros is looking for a way to justify continuing to smoke. If smoking is bad for my health, it is my problem. If smoking is bad for everyone else's health as well, I might feel obligated to stop. If I say it is NOT bad for anyone else (even though there is a huge amount of evidence to the contrary), I can continue to smoke without feeling bad about it. And truthfully it doesn't matter if eros or any other smoker believes it really; I believe it and I don't want to be exposed to your poison. Kill yourself in your own house, thank you very much, but leave my lungs out of it. I applaud the government for passing some legislature that actually protects people for a change.
I have never seen these particular ads on TV but I don't have a problem with them. I think they are a little creepy but kinda funny actually. They are no less subversive than ads for other things that can kill you like alcohol or drugs. It is ridiculous to suggest a comparison between racial and religious groups and the "persecution" of smokers.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I didn't actually watch those ads until now.
I tend to agree that I don't see anything morally objectionable about them. It's amounts to social peer pressure. Anyone who has kissed a smoker already knows that though, so I'd say it's aimed at the smoker, to let him/her know that what they are doing is incredibly unattractive and that it'll cost them. I don't see the problem with it.
However, the ad is creepy as all hell. It's slightly amusing, ever so slightly, but mostly is just friggin creepy and weird. While I don't disagree with the message, the method of getting that message across certainly could have been better. Whatever happened to those commercials in the early 90's with the teenagers kissing each other and then sticking their tongues out to the camera only to find out they had the contents of an ashtray in there? Icky, but not creepy.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I firmly believe that there is almost nothing more rude than to smoke around non-smokers.
When I am walking down on a sidewalk, and there are people smoking in front of me, I will hold my breath until I am far clear of them. Niki does the same.
Its nasty, its vile, and I think less of you as a person for doing it. I make no aplogies for that.
If you were to put a bunch of chemicals proven to cause cancer and which are generally harmful to people's health, put it in an aerosol can along with something designed to smell terrible and to stick to clothing for days, and then get in packs and spray it around an area outside a business or on a sidewalk, I would feel about the same about you as I do about smokers in public.
It also makes you look incredibly stupid, but you have the right to be as stupid as you want to be, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Honestly, I will be really pissed if these Lousiaina Clean Air people accomplish their goals. And I don't smoke. I just don't see a problem with people smoking in bars.
Its real quite simple pH.
1) Second hand smoke has been proven to be detrimental to people's health in a serious and life threatening way.
2) Bartenders, watresses, bouncers, and other bar staff spend 8+ hours inhaling massive amounts of second hand smoke during their shift. After a couple of years of working, even if they don't smoke themselves, they are at serious risk of developing health problems due to cigarette smoke inhalation.
3) Workplaces have a legal responsibility to provide a safe work environment for their employees.
I don't see any way allowing smoking in bars could ever be legal given 1, 2, and 3. Its simply a workplace safety issue. Its like an employer having exposed decaying asbestos in there workplace. That's not legal either.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by MandyM: I think that eros is looking for a way to justify continuing to smoke.
I think eros is trying to start a discussion on smear ad campaigns.
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:Honestly, I will be really pissed if these Lousiaina Clean Air people accomplish their goals. And I don't smoke. I just don't see a problem with people smoking in bars.
Its real quite simple pH.
1) Second hand smoke has been proven to be detrimental to people's health in a serious and life threatening way.
2) Bartenders, watresses, bouncers, and other bar staff spend 8+ hours inhaling massive amounts of second hand smoke during their shift. After a couple of years of working, even if they don't smoke themselves, they are at serious risk of developing health problems due to cigarette smoke inhalation.
3) Workplaces have a legal responsibility to provide a safe work environment for their employees.
I don't see any way allowing smoking in bars could ever be legal given 1, 2, and 3. Its simply a workplace safety issue. Its like an employer having exposed decaying asbestos in there workplace. That's not legal either.
1. No, it hasn't. It has been proven to contain chemicals that can cause health problems. But do we know how much smoke one would have to breathe in order to develop said health problems? Like the dental thread...amalgam fillings and sealants expose patients to harmful chemicals....but we don't think SO FAR that the exposure is enough to cause significant harm.
And I had responses as to how a decent study of second hand smoke is not impossible...but I must go to class. Suffice to say, there ARE ways to go about it.
-pH
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:In this case, with the number studies showing a correlative relationship -- and this isn't a no-brainer, here, since the suggestion is that long-term exposure to known carcinogens increases risk of cancer -- the likelihood of a causative relationship is high.
I'm certainly not trying to argue that the carcinogens present in second hand smoke are magically not harmful when in second hand smoke; what I have not seen is evidence that the small amounts of these carcinogens present in second hand smoke will have any measurable influence in causing new (not aggravating existing) medical conditions in a person, especially in an open atmosphere.
quote:But the point is that you don't continue to do something that you know is harmful to those around you just because, in your mind, there's an ever so slight chance that it's not that harmful.
My whole point is that I don't "know" anything about it. The chances that it's not harmful are not any more slight than the chances that it is.
quote:I think that eros is looking for a way to justify continuing to smoke. If smoking is bad for my health, it is my problem. If smoking is bad for everyone else's health as well, I might feel obligated to stop. If I say it is NOT bad for anyone else (even though there is a huge amount of evidence to the contrary), I can continue to smoke without feeling bad about it.
You're wrong about every assumption you've made there.
The purpose of this thread was to see what other reactions were like regarding a series of ads that attack people for using a product rather than the product, the companies who produce it or the act of using it.
quote:And truthfully it doesn't matter if eros or any other smoker believes it really; I believe it and I don't want to be exposed to your poison. Kill yourself in your own house, thank you very much, but leave my lungs out of it. I applaud the government for passing some legislature that actually protects people for a change.
I'm going to go ahead and point out again that car exhaust is significantly worse for you and far more abundant in almost any public setting than cigarette smoke is - especially now that more and more states are legislating against smoking in any public or private non-residential enclosure.
quote:They are no less subversive than ads for other things that can kill you like alcohol or drugs.
Where exactly do you live that there are subversive ads for drugs? I'm assuming you mean pharmaceuticals and that you don't live in an area where drugs like marijuana are legal.
quote:It is ridiculous to suggest a comparison between racial and religious groups and the "persecution" of smokers.
Easy to say, when you're in the persecuting group. I'm about as conscientious a smoker as they come. How do you imagine the average muslim or Arab American feels getting treated like a terrorist when they've done nothing out of the ordinary wrong?
The ad campaigns I'm objecting to in the first place do not even discuss smoking as a health issue; they jump directly into the cosmetic, superficial issues involved, ignoring health completely. I think it is, therefore, a valid comparison to say that a billboard of that nature is as offensive to me as one that said "Kissing a Jap is just gross."
quote:Its nasty, its vile, and I think less of you as a person for doing it. I make no aplogies for that.
You don't have to. I find your views narrowminded, shortsighted and generalized, and I make no apologies for that, either.
quote:If you were to put a bunch of chemicals proven to cause cancer and which are generally harmful to people's health, put it in an aerosol can along with something designed to smell terrible and to stick to clothing for days, and then get in packs and spray it around an area outside a business or on a sidewalk, I would feel about the same about you as I do about smokers in public.
I'm waiting for you or anyone to answer my question regarding car exhaust, which is much, much more noxious, much more abundant in the open atmosphere and (in my opinion) smells much worse.
(Edited to add the word "when")
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
You know why I smoke? Because J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis smoked. Honestly. I'm such a follower.
I'd totally jump off a bridge too...
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
(Warning: VERY graphic mental picture ahead)
Here's another analogy I think is at least semi-valid: how would you feel about a billboard or TV commercial that said "Aborting babies is just gross" and depicted images of a woman queefing chunks of dead baby out of her vagina?
[ April 20, 2006, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: erosomniac ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Unpleasant?
That's by far the most graphic imagine I've ever READ on Hatrack. I think you either need to edit, or you need a stronger warning.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
I like the ads. I think they are an effective way to try and discourage smoking. Too often smokers take the attitude that it is there body so they should do what they want with it. The problem is that they are destroying lots of other sets of lungs as well and those people had no choice. If I had my way, smoking would be illegal.
Look, if you want to believe second hand smoke isn't dangerous thats your business. However, the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. Some people don't believe in man landing on the moon. I don't care what a very fringe minority with a vested interest in their conclusions think. I personally refuse to expose myself to second hand smoke if at all possible. I won't stay at people's homes who smoke, I don't eat or frequent places where smoking is allowed. If someone outside is smoking, I try to move to a new location. Not only is it a fear for my health but it also makes me feel ill to be around smokers. I develop headaches and often a sore throat. I have also noticed that the smell stays with me for days.
I have no problem with ads that depict smokers as harmful. They are harmful. They drive up health care costs and negatively effect everyone else's health. It is irrelevant if other things are also bad for people's health. There is no societal benefit to smoking. There are huge benefits to the automobile. Even with those benefits I still support regulations to reduce the harmful effects. I would certainly not want to be stuck indoors with lots of car fumes!
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
Wow, there's a serious amount of Smug in this thread. The anti-smokers are almost as annoyingly authoritarian as the people who drive hybrid cars and brag about it, and condemn you for not following suit.
Just because you don't like smoking, or second hand smoke, or smoke in your hair, I find it laughable that you have the gall to walk into a restaurant and tell all the smokers in there "you're not going to do that around me, because the world revolves around me, and everything and anything I don't like I'm going to use some kind of legislator to outlaw." Give me a break. What next, are you going to stop restaurants from serving cake because America is an obese society? I hate to break out the cliche argument, but it applies: if you don't like breathing in smoke, don't go to restaurants that allow smoking. I'm sure there are plenty of alternatives to those smokey bars.
The accusation of child abuse by means of secondhand smoke is a joke. It demeans the people who have really been abused. Nevertheless, I guess I better phone my dad and berate him for the years of child abuse he inflicted. "Nevermind that I'm perfectly healthy dad, you're a monster!"
Smokers must feel like lepers these days. Hell, pretty soon I expect to see people running up to smokers and shouting "Unclean!!! Unclean!!!."
I'm not a smoker, but I find the way they're treated to be appalling. Just because you find the act of smoking disgusting, doesn't mean you should have the audacity to climb onto your high horse and pass judgements. You certainly have the right to protest, but you should expect reprisals as adamant as the ones you dish out.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I find it laughable that you have the gall to walk into a restaurant and tell all the smokers in there "you're not going to do that around me, because the world revolves around me, and everything and anything I don't like I'm going to use some kind of legislator to outlaw."
So Fitz, did you miss my post about how anti-smoking laws in workplaces are a workplace safety issue to protect employees?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:They are harmful. They drive up health care costs and negatively effect everyone else's health. It is irrelevant if other things are also bad for people's health.
It's not about whether there are other legal substances or products that are bad for people's health, rather, it is the perceived double standard taken toward the users themselves. I wouldn't be surprised to see an ad showing the negative impact of eating at McDonald's every day or driving an SUV. However, I would NOT expect to see an ad that attacks me personally if I were to do either of those perfectly legal things. Although, if an ad wants to address the effects that smoking has on others, fine, but they really shouldn't attack the entire group of smokers.
quote:I don't eat or frequent places where smoking is allowed.
I think this is an important comment. I too would prefer to be in a place that is smoke free, however, I'm not sure that the government should get too involved. In other words, if a restaurant or bar wants to permit smoking and all of the customers are there to smoke, shouldn't the restuarant be allowed to decide for themselves? After all, it's a business decision. They fully recognize that they may lose sales from people that don't want to be surrounded by smoke, and if they are willing to accept those losses, they should be able to make that decision. People still have the choice as to whether they go there or not.
Edit to add: However, I am in full agreement for laws that regulate smoking in businesses or public areas where smoking is not one of the main objectives for the group.
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
quote:So Fitz, did you miss my post about how anti-smoking laws in workplaces are a workplace safety issue to protect employees?
Did I disagree with you about work places? This is a situation where people are, for the most part, forced to be in a closed area. I agree that smoking shouldn't be allowed here. With a restaurant, you have a choice to be there.
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
As for employees of a bar or restaurant, well, they certainly do have a choice of whether or not they wish to continue their employment there. Don't tell me someone applies at a facility that allows smoking, and doesn't know what they're in for.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Did I disagree with you about work places? This is a situation where people are, for the most part, forced to be in a closed area. I agree that smoking shouldn't be allowed here. With a restaurant, you have a choice to be there.
Fitz, restaurants and bars ARE workplaces. You realize that don't you?
quote:In other words, if a restaurant or bar wants to permit smoking and all of the customers are there to smoke, shouldn't the restuarant be allowed to decide for themselves? After all, it's a business decision. They fully recognize that they may lose sales from people that don't want to be surrounded by smoke, and if they are willing to accept those losses, they should be able to make that decision. People still have the choice as to whether they go there or not.
Its not to protect customers, its to protect the employees.
I'm not sure how many times I need to say that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fitz:
quote:So Fitz, did you miss my post about how anti-smoking laws in workplaces are a workplace safety issue to protect employees?
Did I disagree with you about work places? This is a situation where people are, for the most part, forced to be in a closed area. I agree that smoking shouldn't be allowed here. With a restaurant, you have a choice to be there.
Unless you work in a restaurant or bar.
BTW, I have significant health problems related to my mother smoking when I was young. This was before the effects of second-hand smoke were widely known, so not really her fault. And to her credit, once she did know, she quit.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:As for employees of a bar or restaurant, well, they certainly do have a choice of whether or not they wish to continue their employment there. Don't tell me someone applies at a facility that allows smoking, and doesn't know what they're in for.
Okay, since you appear to have made the realization.
Why should software engineers have the right to a safe workplace and bartenders do not?
Should we repeal all workplace safety laws and simply force employers to tell their applicants what the dangers are?
"We have exposed asbestos here, and if you want to work here, you'll have to deal with it. That exposed electrical wire over there? Try and avoid that. Oh and our water here is poisoned, hope you don't mind. You could just go work someplace else, right?"
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
When I put a gun to a bartender's head and force him to work in a restaurant that allows smoking, your arugment might have some merit. When you apply for employment at a place that allows smoking, you know what you're in for. The food service industry is large enough that there are options.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Okay, since you appear to have made the realization.
Why should software engineers have the right to a safe workplace and bartenders do not?
Should we repeal all workplace safety laws and simply force employers to tell their applicants what the dangers are?
"We have exposed asbestos here, and if you want to work here, you'll have to deal with it. That exposed electrical wire over there? Try and avoid that. Oh and our water here is poisoned, hope you don't mind. You could just go work someplace else, right?"
What about lumberjacks, miners, policemen, fire fighters, taxi drivers, etc.? Where do you draw the line?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fitz: Wow, there's a serious amount of Smug in this thread. The anti-smokers are almost as annoyingly authoritarian as the people who drive hybrid cars and brag about it, and condemn you for not following suit.
Just because you don't like smoking, or second hand smoke, or smoke in your hair, I find it laughable that you have the gall to walk into a restaurant and tell all the smokers in there "you're not going to do that around me, because the world revolves around me, and everything and anything I don't like I'm going to use some kind of legislator to outlaw." Give me a break. What next, are you going to stop restaurants from serving cake because America is an obese society? I hate to break out the cliche argument, but it applies: if you don't like breathing in smoke, don't go to restaurants that allow smoking. I'm sure there are plenty of alternatives to those smokey bars.
The accusation of child abuse by means of secondhand smoke is a joke. It demeans the people who have really been abused. Nevertheless, I guess I better phone my dad and berate him for the years of child abuse he inflicted. "Nevermind that I'm perfectly healthy dad, you're a monster!"
Smokers must feel like lepers these days. Hell, pretty soon I expect to see people running up to smokers and shouting "Unclean!!! Unclean!!!."
I'm not a smoker, but I find the way they're treated to be appalling. Just because you find the act of smoking disgusting, doesn't mean you should have the audacity to climb onto your high horse and pass judgements. You certainly have the right to protest, but you should expect reprisals as adamant as the ones you dish out.
That's funny. Where you see an anti-smoker as "you aren't smoking around me, I'm the center of the world." I see a smoker as "I'll do what I want, smoke where I want, when I want and you have to deal with it, looks like it's your problem, not mine." Fact of the matter is a smoker can enter a non-smoking bar and still enjoy himself, whereas someone who doesn't want to inhale poison or smell like an ashtray at the end of a night can't do the same in a reverse situation.
I live in a bar town, none of which are smoke free. Well, there are a few clubs in Pontiac that are smoke free, but my God the music there is awful. Anyway, there aren't any real alternatives, let alone "plenty of places."
And no, child abuse by way of second hand smoke is NOT laughable. It's very real, and it kills or debilitates the underdeveloped lungs of children around the world. I suspect you either don't have asthma, or your father didn't smoke very much. Or maybe you just got lucky. But an anecdote of one person doesn't make a scientific study. It'll be nice to hear you reconcile that post with your future self if/when you develop lung or heart complications as a result of damage done in your youth. I've known a few kids who were viciously verbally abused as children and they turned out perfectly normal. Just because the kid rises above doesn't make the crime any less severe.
While I find smoking to be a horrible habit, I have no problem with people doing it, so long as they don't do it near me. It's not that hard, you just DON'T SMOKE when you're around non-smokers. I don't see why selfish smokers should get their way when both sides can comfortably inhabit the same space.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And no, child abuse by way of second hand smoke is NOT laughable. It's very real, and it kills or debilitates the underdeveloped lungs of children around the world. I suspect you either don't have asthma, or your father didn't smoke very much. Or maybe you just got lucky. But an anecdote of one person doesn't make a scientific study. It'll be nice to hear you reconcile that post with your future self if/when you develop lung or heart complications as a result of damage done in your youth. I've known a few kids who were viciously verbally abused as children and they turned out perfectly normal. Just because the kid rises above doesn't make the crime any less severe.
My father smokes like a chimney. In fact, he smoked all over the house until my younger brother was born. Three of his children do not have any severe respiratory ailments. The one child that does is the youngest, who has had the least exposure to my father's cigarette smoke.
And again, do we KNOW that secondhand smoke exposes one to levels of carcinogens that are harmful? There are plenty of substances which CAN cause cancer, and we're exposed to them every day.
-pH
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote: While I find smoking to be a horrible habit, I have no problem with people doing it, so long as they don't do it near me. It's not that hard, you just DON'T SMOKE when you're around non-smokers. I don't see why selfish smokers should get their way when both sides can comfortably inhabit the same space.
See, here's the problem as I see it: non-smokers more or less automatically assume that every smoker they encounter is going to be a jerk about it, when in reality many of us are very conscientious about it. Many smokers, if you just ask politely and not with a snide condescending tone, will stand farther away from you or even put their cigarette out if it's bothering you. Many will consciously avoid smoking if they're going to be in an area where keeping their smoke relatively contained isn't possible.
And believe it or not, even the conscientious ones make mistakes from time to time. I was smoking at a bus stop the other day and because it was pouring and there was no one else there, I was standing under the shelter. Another person came up behind me to stand in the shelter and I didn't hear or see them, but they proceeded to verbally berate me until the bus showed up about how I was being a bastard. How much effort would it have taken for him/her to ask me if I could stand outside of the shelter or put the cigarette out? If I had even seen her there, I would have moved automatically.
If you give people a break, they're generally willing to be accomodating. More and more often, the vindictive intolerant jackasses seem to be non-smokers - or maybe it will just always seem this way to me, and it will always seem the reverse to the non-smoker.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:What about lumberjacks, miners, policemen, fire fighters, taxi drivers, etc.? Where do you draw the line?
I knew someone would say something like this.
There are a lot of jobs out there where there is a signifigant amount of danger. In these professions, its an unavoidable and necessary component of thier jobs.
Inhaling the equivalent two packs of cigarettes in an eight hour shift (here ya go) is NOT a necessary part of being a bartender. You can serve drinks just as well.
Do me a favor, do a google search for "second hand smoke bartenders" and look at some of the facts. Here's one to get you started:
quote:Food service workers are 50% more likely to develop lung cancer than members of the general population.
quote:My father smokes like a chimney. In fact, he smoked all over the house until my younger brother was born. Three of his children do not have any severe respiratory ailments. The one child that does is the youngest, who has had the least exposure to my father's cigarette smoke.
So 1/4 of his children got a serious respiratory ailment, and that's your evidence that second hand smoke does not hurt children???
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I knew someone would say something like this.
There are a lot of jobs out there where there is a signifigant amount of danger. In these professions, its an unavoidable and necessary component of thier jobs.
If you knew someone would say it, you should have come up with a better answer. Dealing with second hand smoke is as much an unavoidable and necessary component of your job if you work in a restaurant or bar that allows it as dealing with moron customers or touching food is.
quote:Inhaling the equivalent two packs of cigarettes in an eight hour shift (here ya go) is NOT a necessary part of being a bartender. You can serve drinks just as well.
If you work in a bar that allows smoking, then YES, yes it is.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:My father smokes like a chimney. In fact, he smoked all over the house until my younger brother was born. Three of his children do not have any severe respiratory ailments. The one child that does is the youngest, who has had the least exposure to my father's cigarette smoke.
So 1/4 of his children got a serious respiratory ailment, and that's your evidence that second hand smoke does not hurt children???
No. What I'm saying is that "you obviously didn't have a father who smoked" is ridiculous.
-pH
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Lets examine your logic, shall we?
Its a necessary part of being a bartender at a bar that allows smoking because the bar allows smoking...
You know, couldn't they, I don't know, STOP allowing smoking?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I think it would be good to allow certain bars/restaurants and other businesses to allow for indoor smoking with full disclosure. I think it's silly that someone cannot smoke indoors in a cigar shop or cannot smoke indoors in a bar if it's clearly stated that it is a smoker's bar and all patrons and employees are fully aware of the dangers of secondhand smoke and choose to work there irregardless.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:You know, couldn't they, I don't know, STOP allowing smoking?
Xavier, seriously, your OWN logic makes no sense. Bartenders can choose to work at a bar that doesn't allow smoking. How is this different than, say, joining the Army, where there is an inherent risk of loss of life but the risk is enormously greater as an infantryman than as a webdesigner? When joining the FBI, as a field agent vs a forensic scientist?
I honestly don't see what's so hard to grasp.
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fitz: When I put a gun to a bartender's head and force him to work in a restaurant that allows smoking, your arugment might have some merit. When you apply for employment at a place that allows smoking, you know what you're in for. The food service industry is large enough that there are options.
This might be true in an area where there are plenty of jobs available (which is true here in Edmonton). But in areas where the job market is very competitive for even service industry jobs people just can't afford to be picky about where they work.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Because it is possible, and perhaps even desirable to have restaurants without risking the health of an employee. It is not possible to be a firefighter without that risk. Employers are supposed to eliminate unnecessary and avoidable risks.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Xavier, while I don't disagree with the argument you're trying to make, I do think there are alternatives.
I may be slightly reversing myself on this specific instance, but I work in a bar/restaurant, and probably 90% of the people who work there are smokers themselves, and the entire barstaff smokes. None of them complain about it. I've yet to see anyone have a problem with it. If they don't like smoke, the managers either put them in the patio or far away in a non smoking section.
pH -
quote:No. What I'm saying is that "you obviously didn't have a father who smoked" is ridiculous.
Who said that?
Anecdotal evidence on Hatrack isn't a scientific study. REAL scientific studies, like ones I've alluded to on this thread say that ESPECIALLY for children, second hand smoke is dangerous. It is especially dangerous for children because their lungs aren't yet fully formed, and it could cause disease, or leave their lungs damaged and more prone to conditions that will manifest themselves later in life.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Xavier, seriously, your OWN logic makes no sense. Bartenders can choose to work at a bar that doesn't allow smoking. How is this different than, say, joining the Army, where there is an inherent risk of loss of life but the risk is enormously greater as an infantryman than as a webdesigner? When joining the FBI, as a field agent vs a forensic scientist?
I honestly don't see what's so hard to grasp.
So now we are back to "they can choose a different bar".
That wasn't the point we were debating. If you'll remember, the point we were debating was "is it a necessary part of a bartenders job to inhale second hand smoke". You said it was, in bars which allow smoking. But since there is nothing which says that a bar must allow smoking, your logic is circular.
Consider a bar which has drinking water with a dangerous percentage of arsenic in it.
Its not a necessary part of being a bartender to have to deal with having only poisonous water to drink. If someone replies: It is a necessary part of being a bartender in a bar which has poisonous water, I am going to question the logic of that. The fact that you can choose NOT to work at a bar with poisonous water is irrelevant.
quote:How is this different than, say, joining the Army, where there is an inherent risk of loss of life but the risk is enormously greater as an infantryman than as a webdesigner? When joining the FBI, as a field agent vs a forensic scientist?
Its different because danger is a NECESSARY part of being an infantryman or an FBI field agent. It is NOT a necessary part of being a bartender.
Get it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: See, here's the problem as I see it: non-smokers more or less automatically assume that every smoker they encounter is going to be a jerk about it, when in reality many of us are very conscientious about it. Many smokers, if you just ask politely and not with a snide condescending tone, will stand farther away from you or even put their cigarette out if it's bothering you. Many will consciously avoid smoking if they're going to be in an area where keeping their smoke relatively contained isn't possible.
And believe it or not, even the conscientious ones make mistakes from time to time. I was smoking at a bus stop the other day and because it was pouring and there was no one else there, I was standing under the shelter. Another person came up behind me to stand in the shelter and I didn't hear or see them, but they proceeded to verbally berate me until the bus showed up about how I was being a bastard. How much effort would it have taken for him/her to ask me if I could stand outside of the shelter or put the cigarette out? If I had even seen her there, I would have moved automatically.
If you give people a break, they're generally willing to be accomodating. More and more often, the vindictive intolerant jackasses seem to be non-smokers - or maybe it will just always seem this way to me, and it will always seem the reverse to the non-smoker.
And I have also been, several time verbally abused, and once even threatened, when I have politely asked someone not to smoke when there were "No Smoking" signs. I have even gotten a hard time from smokers when I move away from them when they light up.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:That wasn't the point we were debating. If you'll remember, the point we were debating was "is it a necessary part of a bartenders job to inhale second hand smoke". You said it was, in bars which allow smoking. But since there is nothing which says that a bar must allow smoking, your logic is circular.
Consider a bar which has drinking water with a dangerous percentage of arsenic in it.
Its not a necessary part of being a bartender to have to deal with having only poisonous water to drink. If someone replies: It is a necessary part of being a bartender in a bar which has poisonous water, I am going to question the logic of that. The fact that you can choose NOT to work at a bar with poisonous water is irrelevant.
The law, in an area where smoking is public enclosed spaces, says a bar MAY choose to allow smoking. Therefore, it MAY be a necessary element of the job of being a bartender to inhale smoke.
The difference between a bar with poisonous water and a bar that allows smoking is that there are universal laws regarding poisonous water in a place of consumption, whereas there are only varying laws regarding smoking in an establishment.
If you believe that bartenders have the right to a smoke free environment regardless of what bar they work in, go work on getting that legislated into the law. Other people have done so successfully. Your argument still goes against common sense.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:My whole point is that I don't "know" anything about it. The chances that it's not harmful are not any more slight than the chances that it is.
Because you take all the studies and reasons given to you and choose to ignore them, saying they're not convincing. Convenient that taking that position allows to you continue to smoke around people, guilt-free, for the forseeable future.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:The law, in an area where smoking is public enclosed spaces, says a bar MAY choose to allow smoking. Therefore, it MAY be a necessary element of the job of being a bartender to inhale smoke.
Well obviously the whole point of what I am talking about is that it shouldn't be the law that a bar may choose to allow smoking. To use the fact that its currently legal in debating the logic of whether it should be legal is, in my opinion, quite silly.
quote:The difference between a bar with poisonous water and a bar that allows smoking is that there are universal laws regarding poisonous water in a place of consumption, whereas there are only varying laws regarding smoking in an establishment.
And my whole argument is that the laws shouldn't be any different. Bartenders should have the same safety rights as I do.
quote:If you believe that bartenders have the right to a smoke free environment regardless of what bar they work in, go work on getting that legislated into the law. Other people have done so successfully.
New York did this very thing while I was living there, and you better believe I am supporting similar measures in Omaha, where I live now. This law exists in Lincoln, and there was a bill vetoed for Omaha which would have enacted a similar ordinance. It was vetoed because it left a gaping loop-hole for places with Keno, and all the bars were just going to all get Keno. Hopefully we can pass a real law soon, but I'm not holding my breath (except when I walk past smokers ).
quote:Your argument still goes against common sense.
Coming from the person who believes that second hand smoking being dangerous is a myth, I'll take that as a compliment. Using circular logic, and falling back on more circular logic, does not a reasonable argument make.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
eros: You never responded to my 4:01am and 4:11am posts.
pH said: "And again, do we KNOW that secondhand smoke exposes one to levels of carcinogens that are harmful? There are plenty of substances which CAN cause cancer, and we're exposed to them every day."
As has already been stated by someone else, the correlation between second hand smoke and health problems have statistically controlled for exposure to other carcinogens.
Look at it this way, you have two groups of kids: A) those exposed to second hand smoke and B) those who were not. You find out that both groups have around the same number of kids who were exposed to high levels of other carcinogens like car exhaust and asbestos. If second-hand smoke played no role in cancers and other health problems, we would expect both groups to have around the same number of kids with health problems because on average both groups had about the same number of kids with similar exposure to other carcinogens. However, if we have a large enough sample size, and we find that group A has more kids with health problems, we can begin to suspect that it is the second-hand smoke that is to blame.
But, before we jump to any conclusions, let's look at the two groups again. Are there any other differences between the kids in the two groups besides exposure to second-hand smoke? What if we find that group A seems to have a predominance of low income families. Maybe it is poor nutrition or health care that is to blame. So, we statistically control for that difference. We say in effect what if we match kids from each group according to socio-economic status, so that that factor can no longer explain any differences between the groups because it is held constant between the two groups. Does the finding that kids in group A have more cancers still hold? Yes, it does. That gives us more confidence that it is the second-hand smoke that is to blame.
Now, because this is correlational data, we can never say second hand smoke causes cancer. But, we do have a lot of support for that hypothesis and anyone wanting to challenge that needs to come up with some other variable that co-occurs with second-hand smoke exposure that could explain why group A kids have more cancers. I think most all reasonable culprits have been already ruled out.
As I said before, an experiment could prove causation, but the experiment would result in cancers, and there is not enough doubt that second hand smoke causes health conditions to justify making people sick just to prove it to the die hard doubters.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for employees of a bar or restaurant, well, they certainly do have a choice of whether or not they wish to continue their employment there. Don't tell me someone applies at a facility that allows smoking, and doesn't know what they're in for.
You're right! That waitress, who makes minimum wage, who's struggling to make enough money to feed her family, has a choice. She can work at the smoke-filled bar/restaurant or be unemployed.
Hmmmm...possible lung cancer or hungry children?
Having choices is great!!
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Because you take all the studies and reasons given to you and choose to ignore them, saying they're not convincing. Convenient that taking that position allows to you continue to smoke around people, guilt-free, for the forseeable future.
You go ahead and think that; I'll take great pleasure in knowing you're wrong, as I'm sure you take great pleasure thinking I'm wrong.
quote:Well obviously the whole point of what I am talking about is that it shouldn't be the law that a bar may choose to allow smoking.
Given the variance of laws in the United States about this issue and the scope of this thread, it was not at all obvious.
quote:Coming from the person who believes that second hand smoking being dangerous is a myth
There's a difference between finding observational studies inconclusive and calling danger from second hand smoke a myth.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:You're right! That waitress, who makes minimum wage, who's struggling to make enough money to feed her family, has a choice. She can work at the smoke-filled bar/restaurant or be unemployed.
Hmmmm...possible lung cancer or hungry children?
Having choices is great!!
Because clearly, those are the only two choices.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I don't actually get any pleasure out of people who selfishly rationalize their bad habits by couching them in faulty logic while thinking they've done their due diligence.
As Dennis Miller says, anyone who denies that smoking is bad for you is lying through the hole in their throat.
Of course, in real life I'm very tolerant of smokers. A lot of my friends smoke, and it wouldn't occur to me to ask them not to just because I'm sitting there. But looking at the bigger picture I think it's a bad deal when people continue to say they're not convinced that cigarette smoke causes cancer.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:The chances that it's not harmful are not any more slight than the chances that it is.
quote:There's a difference between finding observational studies inconclusive and calling danger from second hand smoke a myth.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:There are a lot of jobs out there where there is a signifigant amount of danger. In these professions, its an unavoidable and necessary component of thier jobs.
The key here is how you define "necessary component of their jobs." Your reasoning is that since smoking itself is not necessary, it shouldn't be necessary for a worker to have to be around it. But what if the primary reason people go to a certain establishment is to smoke and drink? Is it wrong for a business to cater to that legal desire? You are suggesting that it is wrong and should be illegal for a business to accommodate that desire.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I don't actually get any pleasure out of people who selfishly rationalize their bad habits by couching them in faulty logic while thinking they've done their due diligence.
You do seem to get pleasure out of attributing motives where there are none and belittling people.
quote:Of course, in real life I'm very tolerant of smokers. A lot of my friends smoke, and it wouldn't occur to me to ask them not to just because I'm sitting there. But looking at the bigger picture I think it's a bad deal when people continue to say they're not convinced that cigarette smoke causes cancer.
I never once denied that cigarette smoke is bad for you - I have denied that there is conclusive evidence that second hand smoke is the primary cause of the diseases that are often attributed to it. Dennis Miller (who, incidentally, is one of my heroes) is obviously speaking of people who smoke, not the effects of second hand smoke.
I'm not sure what your quoting my two statements was designed to accomplish.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I started writing this almost an hour ago, so I'm a little hesitant to post it--the conversation has probably moved on to a discussion of the moral implications and practical considerations of genemodding gerbils to survive in arctic environments or something. That said, I'm going to click "Add Reply" anyway.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote: I was smoking at a bus stop the other day and because it was pouring and there was no one else there, I was standing under the shelter. Another person came up behind me to stand in the shelter and I didn't hear or see them, but they proceeded to verbally berate me until the bus showed up about how I was being a bastard....
More and more often, the vindictive intolerant jackasses seem to be non-smokers - or maybe it will just always seem this way to me, and it will always seem the reverse to the non-smoker.
And I have also been, several time verbally abused, and once even threatened, when I have politely asked someone not to smoke when there were "No Smoking" signs. I have even gotten a hard time from smokers when I move away from them when they light up.
And the lesson that can be drawn from all of this is that whether or not one smokes is not a good predictor of whether or not that person will act like an ass. There is no shortage of considerate, thoughtful people in either camp. Unfortunately, the pushy jackasses aren't exactly in short supply either.
I, as a non-smoker, am convinced by the evidence that second hand smoke, at least in enclosed spaces, is a health threat. I think that kmboots hit the nail on the head when she made the distinction between necessary and unnecessary risk in the workplace, and I have yet to see a convincing argument for smoking in bars being necessary.
I know that in cities where an indoor smoking ban is being considered for businesses, it isn't uncommon for the owners of bars and restaurants to argue that barring smoking will cause their profits to dwindle significantly, as patrons won't be interested in frequenting places where they can't smoke along with whatever else they're doing. I'm skeptical of this claim. If only some of the businesses in a metropolitan area were forced to ban smoking, I could see it--smoking customers would go to those places where smoking was still allowed. If it's banned in the entire metropolitan area, though, I'm not sure why profits would go down. I'd be willing to bet that few patrons will actually make a habit of driving to another city for their bar hopping, and I'd guess that almost none of them would just stop going to bars, period, if they weren't allowed to smoke at them.
On a tangentally related note, I've always been really proud of my father for stopping smoking when my older brother was born. He went cold turkey, and while he says that he still experiences occasional cravings 37 years later, he's never given in to them. His willingness to do something as difficult as breaking a smoking habit for the sake of his family has always been inspiring to me. I realized last Thanksgiving that I'd never told him that, and did so. He just laughed and said that he'd quit because with the new baby in the house he decided he couldn't afford to buy cigarettes.
[ April 20, 2006, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I know that in cities where an indoor smoking ban is being considered for businesses, it isn't uncommon for the owners of bars and restaurants to argue that barring smoking will cause their profits to dwindle significantly, as patrons won't be interested in frequenting places where they can't smoke along with whatever else they're doing. I'm skeptical of this claim. If only some of the businesses in a metropolitan area were forced to ban smoking, I could see it--smoking customers would go to those places where smoking was still allowed. If it's banned in the entire metropolitan area, though, I'm not sure why profits would go down. I'd be willing to bet that few patrons will actually make a habit of driving to another city for their bar hopping, and I'd guess that almost none of them would just stop going to bars, period, if they weren't allowed to smoke at them.
The government seems to like the idea of taxing smokers, so I suggest they impose some fairly heavy taxes on restaurants/bars that want to allow smoking. If a significant amount of their business comes from smokers, then they would be willing to pay the tax, or license fee. Other establishments that don't feel their sales would be affected can just ban smoking. The owners will be happy because they at least have a choice. Customers and employees will still have the choice as to where they want to go also.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:The key here is how you define "necessary component of their jobs." Your reasoning is that since smoking itself is not necessary, it shouldn't be necessary for a worker to have to be around it. But what if the primary reason people go to a certain establishment is to smoke and drink? Is it wrong for a business to cater to that legal desire? You are suggesting that it is wrong and should be illegal for a business to accommodate that desire.
That's actually a very good point.
Businesses absolutely have the legal right to do what they are doing under the current laws in most places. I think its immoral for them to do so, but in most cases, its good business sense, so its not like I blame them too harshly. Many businesses around here are moving to be smoke free under by choice, partly because public sentiment is moving toward smoke free establishments, but most will conintue to allow smoking for this reason.
From a legal standpoint, its a matter of passing a law which requires businesses to provide a level of safety for their employees which they currently do not have to allow.
Noeman is right, by the way, about the economic impact of smoking bans. When New York passed the ban, most bars in my town either increased in business, or stayed the same. For every smoker who will stop going to bars if every bar in the state goes smoke free, there's someone like me who rarely goes to bars because of the smoke.
Edit: In case this last paragraph sounds like a contradiction to the first one, the reason why its bad for a bar to go smoke-free now is because nearly every smoker will avoid that bar. But when every bar is smoke free, they still go to the bars the went to before, they just smoke outside.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
From what I've read about bans here in Canada, in cases where smoking is completely banned in bars and pubs (i.e. no designated smoking rooms), there is an immediate drop in revenue for the month or so after the ban becomes law, but it recovers over time. Having a transition period where designated smoking rooms are allowed (with rules about ventilation and employee exposure) mitigates this.
enochville hit the nail on the head with his 2:24 PM post.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:That's actually a very good point.
See, this is something that I thought we were all assuming - and what I'm talking about when I'm talking about common sense. Because honestly, who goes to a bar to be healthy? If you work in a place that dispenses wholesale poison, does it really make sense to complain that there's an increased health risk?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: - posted April 20, 2006 01:58 PM Profile for erosomniac Email erosomniac Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote
quote:That's actually a very good point.
See, this is something that I thought we were all assuming - and what I'm talking about when I'm talking about common sense. Because honestly, who goes to a bar to be healthy? If you work in a place that dispenses wholesale poison, does it really make sense to complain that there's an increased health risk?
For the employees, they have the option of drinking in a bar or not. They do not have the option of stopping breathing. They can dispense alcohol to their hearts content and their health remains the same, but breathing in their patrons' smoke is seriously harming their health.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I still think that "Smoker's Clubs" should be allowed. Maybe some kind of special ventilation system is required and a difficult licensing system put into place to open up such businesses. Hiring workers would require full disclosure of the environmental effects of smoking.
It just makes sense. Why not?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:You do seem to get pleasure out of attributing motives where there are none and belittling people.
I just don't have much tolerance for people who delude themselves.
quote:I'm not sure what your quoting my two statements was designed to accomplish.
I'm not sure, either. It just seemed that one didn't jive with the other. No reason why they couldn't, I guess, but I had to reread both carefully.
And of course Miller was talking about smokers and not second-hand smoke, but his point is still valid. It's ludicrous to assume smoke, whether second or firsthand, is harmless. It's freaking smoke! If someone stood next to a campfire and inhaled deeply for a few years and then developed lung cancer, you'd say they had it coming.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:For the employees, they have the option of drinking in a bar or not. They do not have the option of stopping breathing. They can dispense alcohol to their hearts content and their health remains the same, but breathing in their patrons' smoke is seriously harming their health.
I thought it was common enough knowledge that smoking and drinking often go hand in hand and that bars tend to be smokey that I wouldn't have to demonstrate the step inbetween, but here it is.
quote:It's ludicrous to assume smoke, whether second or firsthand, is harmless. It's freaking smoke!
Ugh, again, I never said second hand smoke is harmless! Not once! Not ever! Saying that there is no conclusive evidence that second hand smoke is the principal cause of the medical conditions often attributed to it is NOT the same as saying that second hand smoke is harmless! This isn't even a question of semantics!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Saying that there is no conclusive evidence that second hand smoke is the principal cause of the medical conditions often attributed to it is NOT the same as saying that second hand smoke is harmless!
Do you have an alternative explanation for the correlative relationship that exists even when other factors are controlled for? One that fits the data equally well, if not better?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Do you have an alternative explanation for the correlative relationship that exists even when other factors are controlled for? One that fits the data equally well, if not better?
I have yet to see a study where "other factors are controlled for" to my satisfaction.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I thought it was common enough knowledge that smoking and drinking often go hand in hand and that bars tend to be smokey that I wouldn't have to demonstrate the step inbetween, but here it is.
If you can't separate the two in your mind, then its your imagination that fails you. Go to a bar in New York. The patrons enjoy themselves just as much as they did before, they just don't have to wash their bed-sheets, pillow-cases, coats, clothes, hair, skin, and anything which contacted any of these things after they wake up in the morning.
quote:If you can't separate the two in your mind, then its your imagination that fails you.
Your selective reading must have eliminated "often" and "tend to be" in what I said.
Edit to add: in the link above, what do they mean by "100% smoke free law"? The fact that they differentiate for areas with bans on smoking in bars, restaurants and workplaces confuses me, and they don't clarify on the site itself.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: I still think that "Smoker's Clubs" should be allowed. Maybe some kind of special ventilation system is required and a difficult licensing system put into place to open up such businesses. Hiring workers would require full disclosure of the environmental effects of smoking.
It just makes sense. Why not?
Sorry Primal Curve, I meant to address that and completely forgot to. I mostly agree with this idea. My only reason for feeling any reluctance about it is the possibility I see for it to harm businesses that have been forced to go smoke-free. Other than that concern, which I'm not sure is valid, I think that your suggestion is a good one.
Twinky, yeah, I was impressed by enochville's post as well.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Your selective reading must have eliminated "often" and "tend to be" in what I said.
If they can be separated, and have been in almost half the country, then how can you use the argument that they are linked to oppose anti-smoking legislation?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Do you have an alternative explanation for the correlative relationship that exists even when other factors are controlled for? One that fits the data equally well, if not better?
I have yet to see a study where "other factors are controlled for" to my satisfaction.
Tell me more about your satisfaction. What would it take to satisfy you?
(The question is actually meant seriously -- what's your statistical and/or scientific background?)
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Do you have an alternative explanation for the correlative relationship that exists even when other factors are controlled for? One that fits the data equally well, if not better?
I have yet to see a study where "other factors are controlled for" to my satisfaction.
It sounds like you've been doing a lot of digging into this, erosomniac, and I definitely applaud that--it's always a good idea to probe at assumptions and see if they hold up to examination. I find it mind boggling that more than a millenium passed during which educated people "knew" that women had fewer teeth than men, based on Aristotle's assertion that this was the case, when simply spending five minutes actually looking into it would have disproven the idea.
What percentage of the literature on the subject have you read? I know that you said earlier that you'd read about 10% of the works Lyrhawn had cited; would that figure apply to all of the relevant studies that have been done? What kind of flaws have you seen in the methodology? How widespread have you found those flaws to be? What kind of controls would you see as adequate for eliminating other factors as causes of the medical problems being attributed to second hand smoke?
Also, what is your background in the sciences? That question isn't meant to imply that someone without formal training can't spot problems with studies, but if you have particular expertise in this field I'd be interested in hearing about it.
[Edit--or...what twinky said. In three freaking sentences. ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Well, I went for the quickie, while you were much more, ah, thorough.
(I couldn't resist the "satisfaction" gag.)
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:If they can be separated, and have been in almost half the country, then how can you use the argument that they are linked to oppose anti-smoking legislation?
I don't oppose anti-smoking legislation. Did I say I did? If I did, I'd appreciate it if you could point that out so I can edit it.
enochville, I managed to miss not two, but three of your posts, so I'll respond now:
quote:eros: Some research is not ethical to do. You'd never get a review board to approve an experiment (not correlational) in which the researchers expose subjects to known carcingens from the open, burning end of a cigarette just to see if it causes them cancer or other health problems like closing their mouth over that burning cigarette would.
I think mounds of correlational data make a strong enough case. I, for one, am not willing to give people cancer just to prove to you that second-hand smoke causes cancer.
I'm not either - and I will not ever accept the correlational data as conclusive in these cases. We'll just have to agree to disagree as to how conclusive the data is.
quote:Edit: If second hand smoke is not the causal variable that would explain the correlational data, what would you propose as the possible variable that could account for the corrrelational data?
Honestly, I have no idea. In many studies they get close to showing causality, and all of them are in instances of smoking within a confined area, which is why back on the first page I said:
quote:It's worth pointing out the difference between secondhand smoke coming from one person, or even a few people, in an outdoor area, and secondhand smoke from many people in a closed room.
Since then I've been talking primarily about second hand smoke in an open atmosphere setting, which most people have been choosing to ignore, along with most of my other points, and the original point of the discussion in the first place.
quote:In the second hand smoking case, we already know ingredients in cigarettes have been shown to cause cancer. Why would we expect putting one's mouth over the cigarette is that much more dangerous than holding our faces two feet from the smoke and breathing it in.
What continually gets pointed out is that the carcinogens in cigarette smoke, much like the harmful emissions from factories and automobiles, gets diffused enough that the amounts of carcinogens they add to the breathable air are negligible.
The experiment you proposed is reasonable, but still inconclusive. Again, we'll have to agree to disagree: I will need to see a causal relationship between the two, regardless of a lack of other possible variables, in order to consider it conclusive.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:What percentage of the literature on the subject have you read? I know that you said earlier that you'd read about 10% of the works Lyrhawn had cited; would that figure apply to all of the relevant studies that have been done?
I've read many more recent studies than the ones Lyrhawn referenced. I have no idea what the percentage is, but based on the fact that I regularly run into new studies, I'd guess I've read between 1/5 and 1/3 of what's available (keeping in mind that these days, my access to a medical library is much more limited).
quote:What kind of flaws have you seen in the methodology? How widespread have you found those flaws to be? What kind of controls would you see as adequate for eliminating other factors as causes of the medical problems being attributed to second hand smoke?
I'm not sure that "flaws" is the right way to decribe it. I don't typically have problems with the methodology of studies performed; my main quarrel is with the conclusions drawn from the data. Many studies, especially more recent ones, do a good job of methodically accounting for (if not isolating) other variables. But especially when the researchers themselves point out that the studies are not conclusive, I have a hard time accepting the studies as conclusive.
quote:Also, what is your background in the sciences? That question isn't meant to imply that someone without formal training can't spot problems with studies, but if you have particular expertise in this field I'd be interested in hearing about it.
I have no particular expertise in the field. My background doesn't include anything beyond some college level courses (and nothing numbered higher than 170) and a lot of time spent reading medical journals.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I don't oppose anti-smoking legislation. Did I say I did? If I did, I'd appreciate it if you could point that out so I can edit it.
Haha, this is actually kinda funny.
I made a post in response to pH where I was explaining the merits of clear air legislation.
Then Fitz debated some of my points.
I countered.
Then you started arguing with me about my counter-arguments, which were ALL made in the context of anti-smoking legislation.
Which would explain our apparent disconnect, if you either did not read, or did not remember, my posts before the one you responded to, which clearly put my arguments in an anti-smoking in the workplace (including bars and restaurants) legislation context.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I made a post in response to pH where I was explaining the merits of clear air legislation.
That's the part I missed - sorry.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Haha, no big deal. Yeesh, I wasted a lot of time here at work arguing with someone who didn't disagree with me . (Not that you've said you agree with me, or with any of my arguments, but it sounds like you don't disagree with my main point at least)
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Haha, no big deal. Yeesh, I wasted a lot of time here at work arguing with someone who didn't disagree with me [Smile] .
Ugh, yes, I'm glad my boss isn't here right now, or my responses here would be a lot less frequent.
Although I am supposed to be prepping for another job interview. Oops.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Well, I wasted a lot of time reading that argument. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
So erosomniac, is there any study that could be ethically conducted that would prove to your satisfaction whether or not second hand smoke could be a primary cause of, say, lung cancer?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Ugh, yes, I'm glad my boss isn't here right now, or my responses here would be a lot less frequent.
The thing is, I've actually had a fairly productive day. Fixed at least 5 bug tickets, and will probably knock another one out before I leave.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:So erosomniac, is there any study that could be ethically conducted that would prove to your satisfaction whether or not second hand smoke could be a primary cause of, say, lung cancer?
Not that I'm aware of, no.
[Edit]
quote:The thing is, I've actually had a fairly productive day. Fixed at least 5 bug tickets, and will probably knock another one out before I leave.
What do you do? It sounds like your job is very similar to the one I'm about to leave to apply for.
And on that note, I'm leaving the office for a job interview now, so pardon my lack of responses for a few hours.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I'm a software engineer (or software developer for the canadians who may object to my use of the term engineer) for a small software company, doing web-based financial aid software (Java/J2EE).
I've been doing new development for months, which is what I love, but for the time being I am fixing bugs. I've got a whole list of them to fix, but I always start with the easy ones and work my way to the hard ones. The one I just fixed took me all of five minutes .
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:So erosomniac, is there any study that could be ethically conducted that would prove to your satisfaction whether or not second hand smoke could be a primary cause of, say, lung cancer?
Not that I'm aware of, no.
What kind of studies have demonstrated the dangers of smoking itself? Or the dangers of asbestos exposure? Honest question here--I don't know the answer. I'm wondering, though, if they would live up to what you demand of a study.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
sure, people with predispositions to cancer and emphysema are more likely to inhale secondhand smoke.
seriously though, that fact of the matter isn't dependant on any single person's ability to imagine such a relationship.
EDIT - Yay, failure to notice that there are 3 pages! This was in response to Twinky's post at the bottom of page 2.
[ April 20, 2006, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: Juxtapose ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I'm a software engineer (or software developer for the canadians who may object to my use of the term engineer) for a small software company, doing web-based financial aid software (Java/J2EE).
If you're legally entitled to use it, knock yourself out. You wouldn't be entitled to use it here, but here isn't where you are. Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Question to smokers:
If you could get the same substances/chemicals in the same doeses, but in a different form, such as a patch or chewing gum, would you take that instead of a cigarette? If so, that would eliminate the whole problem of secondhand smoke. Or are there other reasons to smoke that don't rely on the substances in the cigarette? If so, couldn't another activity replace it?
I would think if there were satisfactory alternatives available, a smoker should at least consider using those when in a confined, public place. Perhaps businesses could even offer these alternatives to customers where smoking is banned.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [QBpH -
quote:No. What I'm saying is that "you obviously didn't have a father who smoked" is ridiculous.
Who said that?
Anecdotal evidence on Hatrack isn't a scientific study. REAL scientific studies, like ones I've alluded to on this thread say that ESPECIALLY for children, second hand smoke is dangerous. It is especially dangerous for children because their lungs aren't yet fully formed, and it could cause disease, or leave their lungs damaged and more prone to conditions that will manifest themselves later in life. [/QB]
Part of the post I quoted in my initial anecdote:
quote:I suspect you either don't have asthma, or your father didn't smoke very much.
I'm perfectly, completely aware that anecdotal evidence is not a REAL scientific study. I am also perfectly aware of the ways in which one goes about constructing a REAL scientific study.
-pH
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
About the women and teeth thing, I do not think it completely obvious that experiment would have contradicted Aristotle on the question. After all, people having their full set of teeth is a fairly recent development, and women were usually of lower social status than men. It is at least conceivable that women did, in fact, lose more teeth (on average) than men did, and therefore had fewer.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:If you could get the same substances/chemicals in the same doeses, but in a different form, such as a patch or chewing gum, would you take that instead of a cigarette? If so, that would eliminate the whole problem of secondhand smoke. Or are there other reasons to smoke that don't rely on the substances in the cigarette? If so, couldn't another activity replace it?
Doubtful. I enjoy the act of smoking itself. I'll occaisionally smoke at a hookah lounge, despite the fact that hookah tobacco contains a lot less nicotine, just because it's laid back and fun. There are things I like about it that are only incidentally connected to smoking; the way smoke moves and curls through the air, for example. I've always had...let's say busy hands; I'm nearly always twirling a pen or something similar, and smoking fits into that in an obvious way.
If for whatever reason a total public ban on smoking were to go into effect, I'd probably just smoke at home and go through the day as without. Patches, gum, or even chewing tobacco are all pretty unappealing. I hope it wouldn't come to that though as I try to be courteous when I smoke in public; I won't take a drag while passing someone on the street, I avoid groups of people, and will moved when politely asked. When Seattle banned smoking in indoor public areas, I went along without bitching. Well, without a lot of bitching. I don't see why smokers and non-smokers can't meet halfway on this one.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [QBpH -
quote:No. What I'm saying is that "you obviously didn't have a father who smoked" is ridiculous.
Who said that?
Anecdotal evidence on Hatrack isn't a scientific study. REAL scientific studies, like ones I've alluded to on this thread say that ESPECIALLY for children, second hand smoke is dangerous. It is especially dangerous for children because their lungs aren't yet fully formed, and it could cause disease, or leave their lungs damaged and more prone to conditions that will manifest themselves later in life.
Part of the post I quoted in my initial anecdote:
quote:I suspect you either don't have asthma, or your father didn't smoke very much.
I'm perfectly, completely aware that anecdotal evidence is not a REAL scientific study. I am also perfectly aware of the ways in which one goes about constructing a REAL scientific study.
-pH [/QB]
Well, don't you think it's a bit dishonest to use quotations around something that no one actually said? I never said, and by your own quoting there admit that I never said "you obviously didn't have a father who smoked." What I really said, as you quoted later, was:
quote:I suspect you either don't have asthma or your father didn't smoke very much. Or maybe you just got lucky.
The last of which there you left off entirely. And your knowledge of the scientific process not withstanding, you still proceeded to take swipes at what I was saying based on anecdotal evidence.
quote: No. What I'm saying is that "you obviously didn't have a father who smoked" is ridiculous.
Saying that at all seems ridiculous to me, since your ire is directed at a comment that doesn't exist, but that it appears you doctored to make it sound smug and condescending when it never was to begin with, just to get your point across.
You said that 1/4 of the children in your house had a severe respitory problem, and that the rest, who were exposed to higher levels of second hand smoke were fine. You seemed to be using it as a shield against second hand smoke's deadly nature. But when confronted on it, you said it was an attack on a ficticious statement. Maybe you'd like to clarify yourself.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: I don't see why smokers and non-smokers can't meet halfway on this one.
Honey, I'm sorry to be so blunt about this. I know that you are polite and try to avoid harming others with your smoke. The reason that we can't meet "halfway" is because your "right" to indulge an addiction is far outweighed by people's right not to be made ill.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I think that non-smokers tend to start with the assumption that a stranger that smokes is an ass. I'm sure there are many smokers that are asses, but then, there are many people that are asses. Most smokers, or at least most if not all smokers that I know, will gladly leave the room, walk down the block or put out their cigarette if you ask them nicely to. If you are an ass to them (or me), the typical responce will not be so polite. I you just say "excuse me, but second hand smoke really bothers me, would you mind putting that out?" you would get a far better responce than accusing smokers of being selfish and uncaring.
I can't speak for anywhere else in the world, but in Houston there are hundreds upon hundreds of restaurants and bars. A law was recently passed to the effect of restaurants and bars must either be entirely smoking or entirely not. It doesn't hurt anyones income levels, because everyone still goes out, just to different places. I don't go to the bars/restaurants that don't allow smoke, but there are many more people that do. I think this is an excellent solution.
And because there are enough service industry businesses that do and do not allow smoking, the employees get to make the choice as to which the want to work out. Hell, I have bartender/server friends who choose to only apply at smoking establisments so that they can smoke on their off time, and get that necessary nicotine boost from second hand smoke while they work.
I never, ever smoke near children. I think that is just wrong, but I also think it is incredibly stupid when parent's bring children into establishments that they know allow smoking.
I guess my main point is that if people were a little more polite to each other, a lot of the difficulty would be removed.
Smoking is obviously bad for you. So is second hand smoke for that matter. How bad, I couldn't say, but yeah, it's bad. But, just because something is bad for me, doesn't give anyone the right to try to make me stop. I like drinking too, and thats bad for me. and sugar, and coffee, and huffing hair spray... oh wait, scratch that. The point is that you have a right to ask me to smoke somewhere else, but not to tell me that I can't smoke.
As for the smear campaing thing that the thread started with: I completely agree. I relate that to the anti-marijuana ads that implied that smoking pot will make you kill children. I mean, I don't think my mouth tastes bad, and I don't think my girlfriend's mouth tastes bad, and she doesn't think my mouth tastes bad, so where is it anyone's place to tell me my mouth tastes like an ashtray? The anti-smoking ads should stick with the facts, and not subjective perceptions.
[ April 21, 2006, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: vonk ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:I'm not either - and I will not ever accept the correlational data as conclusive in these cases. We'll just have to agree to disagree as to how conclusive the data is.
Just trying to be clear: you do not accept any medical/physiological-related explanation as conclusive based just on correlational data. (I find this markedly difficult to agree with, but I wanted to make sure I understood your assertion first.)
quote:Again, we'll have to agree to disagree: I will need to see a causal relationship between the two, regardless of a lack of other possible variables, in order to consider it conclusive.
Are you familiar with the criteria used formally to establish a causal correlation in regards to medical literature? [There is actually a developed standard on this, and I find it fascinating. If you are unfamiliar with it, I'd be happy to pull it up.]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Wow, Lyrhawn. The quotes around "you obviously didn't have a father who smoked" were clearly not intended to indicate a direct quote, ESPECIALLY SINCE in my ORIGINAL POST, I quoted the ENTIRE PARAGRAPH. Maybe you'd like to read up on what I actually said.
-pH
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Just trying to be clear: you do not accept any medical/physiological-related explanation as conclusive based just on correlational data. (I find this markedly difficult to agree with, but I wanted to make sure I understood your assertion first.)
In most instances, yes. Like most people, I'm more inclined to accept overwhelming correlational data where other possible variables have been ruled out as demonstrating a causal relationship when I actually agree with the implications of that relationship, but that's almost never enough to persuade me entirely.
quote:Are you familiar with the criteria used formally to establish a causal correlation in regards to medical literature?
Yes, unless it's changed in the past...7-8 years or so. If it has, I would appreciate your updating me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
pH -
Well, then why say it?
I mean, if you knew for a fact that I said something, and even quoted it, then why change it and use quotations around it (when if you're going to PARAPHRASE something for the sake of being sarcastic you use ' ' and not " ", which I'm pretty sure you know)?
Perhaps it was a grammatical confusion, but I guess I don't understand why you'd quote me, and then specifically take care to twist it into something sarcastic, and then get angry about it afterwards.
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I just don't understand why you said what you said.
Posted by Althai (Member # 9275) on :
Okay, moving on from the subject of whether or not second hand smoke is harmful, and back to the original topic of the post: nonsmokers attacking smokers for a habit that is legal and a personal choice-
I really don't understand why nonsmokers feel so strongly anti-smoker that they would create smear campaigns against smokers, enact extremely restrictive legislation against smokers, and in general simply make life harder for smokers. I am not a smoker, never have been, and never will be. But I don't see why non-smokers feel a need to pass laws and air advertising that demeans and restricts the behavior of non-smokers.
For example, I am a Seattle voter. As someone mentioned earlier, Seattle just passed Initiative 901, (for the record, I voted against it) which makes it illegal to smoke in any public place or workplace. That means you are not allowed to smoke in bars. You can't even have a seperate room in bars in which smoking is allowed. Now, I'm all for nonsmokers rights, but how is it bad for me, as a nonsmoker, if someone somewhere operates a bar with a smoking room? I mean really. Certainly parts of the law I can agree with - if I work in a large office building, and have to pass in and out of it every day, I shouldn't have to walk through a cloud of smoke to do so. And if I want to open the window of my office to let in some fresh air, it's reasonable for me to expect that there's not someone standing right next to it waving a cigarette at me. But at some point, the law goes beyond protecting the rights of nonsmokers and becomes purely vindictive. And that is not ok.
David
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Of course, laws like that could be intended to protect the people working in bars.
Or they could be in reaction to the fact that when the law allowed for separate smoking sections (I know this is true in my area, don't know about yours), the smoke didn't respect those boundaries, and the laws didn't require safeguards to ensure that it did.
But sure, go ahead and assume the law is vindictive.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Or they could be in reaction to the fact that when the law allowed for separate smoking sections (I know this is true in my area, don't know about yours), the smoke didn't respect those boundaries, and the laws didn't require safeguards to ensure that it did.
Actually, he said:
quote:You can't even have a seperate room in bars
and
quote:someone somewhere operates a bar with a smoking room
which, to me, implied that the room was an actual seperate room with a closing door, as opposed to smoking sections, which typically contained no dividers. I'm assuming, therefore, that he was talking about any bill incorporating the suggestions he made to require the room be actually self-contained.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
IME, doors help very little unless the rooms have separate ventilation systems.
As I said, I'm not familiar with the story in Seattle; just what the story was here in Los Angeles before we passed a law very similar to the new Seattle law.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:IME, doors help very little unless the rooms have separate ventilation systems.
That was also an assumption I was making, since a shared ventilation system would obviously defeat the whole point and no ventilation system would be...yeah, pretty terrible. Even for smokers.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
In Houston when it was legal to have smoking and non-smoking section in one building it was mandatory that they have completely seperate A/C and ventilation systems.
quote:Of course, laws like that could be intended to protect the people working in bars.
The people who work in bars have a choice of whether or not to work in bars that allow smoking. They could wait tables or bartend at any number of restaurants/hotels/clubs/resorts that don't allow smoking. If a person can not get any job what-so-ever besides in a bar that allows smoking, they have more problems than second hand smoke and really need to work on developing some decent job skills.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(ersomniac -- i haven't forgotten my promise. I just has a big test on Wednesday, and I'm all focused on the study.)
Posted by Roseauthor (Member # 148) on :
Aside from all the pollutants that have been/is dumped onto us, the earth, etc.. we demonize cig. smoke. Never made much sense to me to focus on ONE small element when we have massive dumping.
Some of these ads (personal attack), remind me of the 1950/60's black and white ads on pot. They were so grossly exaggerated and erroneous that kids quit listening when reality proved otherwise. Give the medical facts. Those who are going to choose to smoke will do so out of rebellion, to fit into a certain group and discard the advertisements anyhow.
As for reaching a happy medium:
Since there are counties in Texas that are dry (no alcohol), they have this nice little plan. You can serve alcohol if you are a private club. Let's just do the same for smokers.
Make private smoking eateries, bars, coffee houses, parks, etc for smokers only or those who don't care. That way the smokers can keep out those whining non-smokers and the cancerous smokers are quarantined.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Reefer Madness!
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:That way the smokers can keep out those whining non-smokers and the cancerous smokers are quarantined.
Well put. ^_^
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: pH -
Well, then why say it?
I mean, if you knew for a fact that I said something, and even quoted it, then why change it and use quotations around it (when if you're going to PARAPHRASE something for the sake of being sarcastic you use ' ' and not " ", which I'm pretty sure you know)?
Perhaps it was a grammatical confusion, but I guess I don't understand why you'd quote me, and then specifically take care to twist it into something sarcastic, and then get angry about it afterwards.
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, I just don't understand why you said what you said.
Perhaps because I find the idea that anyone who grew up with a parent who smoked SHOULD be against public smoking to be absolutely ridiculous?
-pH
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: The people who work in bars have a choice of whether or not to work in bars that allow smoking. They could wait tables or bartend at any number of restaurants/hotels/clubs/resorts that don't allow smoking. If a person can not get any job what-so-ever besides in a bar that allows smoking, they have more problems than second hand smoke and really need to work on developing some decent job skills.
In the Los Angeles area, before the 1998 law which made it illegal for any restaurant, bar, or tavern to allow smoking, that was simply untrue.
There were virtually NO restaurants or bars that did not have smoking in at least one section. Being a waiter/waitress meant working around cigarette smoke. Period.
And while there was quite a long time period where the law was more honored in the breach than in the observance, I am very glad I live in a state where I can go out to eat and not worry about being unable to breathe. (I react quite strongly to cigarette smoke.)
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I agree that if all restaurants and bars have smoking sections, it is unfair to a server/barteneder who reacts badly to cigarette smoke. But I don't think the solution is to make it illegal to smoke in all restaurants/bars.
If given the choice of making a restaurant all smoking or all non-smoking, a vast majority of restaurants will be non-smoking. A vast majority of bars on the other hand, will be smoking. (I'm basing that on my experience in Houston.) So a person would have plenty of choices.
I just don't think it is fair to force anyone who wants to have a smoke to stand 30 feet away from a building in whatever extreme temperatures might be found in your area.
It is not a one or the other type of situation. You can have people smoking in some restaurants/bars and still have many other restaurants/bars that you can enjoy smoke free. Just because it hasn't happened in your area does not mean it is not a viable, compromising and, in my opinion, better solution.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Good thing you don't live here and I do, then. Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Indeed. I may have to move there just to spite you though. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
How would that spite ME? I'd think it would spite YOU!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
]
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)