|
|
|
|
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/3/2009 3:02:49 PM | | People whine about second hand smoke. I want to live a full life myself and want a chance of making it to 100 years old. I never smoked. They recently got smoking bans signed in Virginia, North Carolina and Wisconsin. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/3/2009 3:04:05 PM |
I see it as a case of where a minority of people do not get to impose their will on a majority of the people. Your addicted to a designer drug "tobacco" and will remain in denial until you are forced to quit.
Maybe you can show me where in the U.S. Constitution is the authority to prevent me from using a legal product. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/3/2009 3:27:37 PM | | ^^^ Who's telling you you can't smoke? | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/3/2009 3:45:19 PM | The 1964 Surgeon General Report, which declared that the inhalation of cigarettes would likely cause lung cancer and heart disease, had a profound impact in the United States. This report started America thinking that the practice of inhaling cigarette smoke was unhealthy and began a long series of studies, lawsuits, and laws, that changed the face of America from a primary smoking society—where over 60 percent of adults in the U.S. smoked—to a number that is now about 30 percent.
On June 27, 2006, long after the first Report and yet likely based on its long-lasting impact, Surgeon General Richard Carmona issued the following statements regarding second hand smoke:
(a) The scientific evidence is now indisputable: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults.
(b) Secondhand smoke contains more than 50 cancer-causing chemicals, and is itself a known human carcinogen
(c) There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 to 40 percent and lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent.
The Surgeon General also stated that 49,000 deaths per year were caused by second hand smoke. As a surgeon, I was stunned, because I had never seen an autopsy report listing second hand smoke as the cause of death. Nor had I seen this as a secondary cause of death. So I asked six pathologists if they had ever listed second hand smoke as a cause of death – not one had. In my years of clinical practice, I have seen patients die from many devastating diseases, and yet I have never seen anyone who has been disabled by, or has died as a result of, second hand smoke. This was my first clue that perhaps there was more hyperbole than science involved in the reports issuing from the Surgeon General’s Office. To give a contrast: 33,000 people die per year of pancreatic cancer – all of the pathologists have listed pancreatic cancer as a cause of death.
Composition of Smoke
Second hand smoke, also called Environmental Tobacco Smoke, is a combination of Mainstream Smoke, which is exhaled by smokers and Sidestream Smoke, which is released directly from the burning tip of cigarettes or cigars. Sidestream smoke is the primary constituent of environmental tobacco smoke, providing most of the vapor phase and over half the particles. Hence, at events such as “The Big Smoke”, the majority of particulate matter comes from sidestream smoke. Exhaled mainstream smoke contributes between 15 and 43 percent of the particulate matter in environmental tobacco smoke. Sidestream smoke is generated at lower temperatures and a higher alkalinity than mainstream smoke, and as a result has a different chemical composition.
During environmental tobacco smoke formation, both sidestream smoke and exhaled mainstream smoke are diluted by many orders of magnitude and subsequently undergo physical transformation and alterations in chemical composition. For example, nicotine and many other semi-volatile compounds of tobacco smoke tend to be present in the particle phase of inhaled mainstream smoke, but evaporate into the vapor phase as exhaled mainstream smoke is rapidly diluted during the formation of environmental tobacco smoke.
Second Hand Smoke and Lung Cancer
If second hand smoke exposure is a significant risk factor for developing lung cancer, then we should expect to see increased numbers of cancer cases in non-smokers who are exposed to regular doses of second hand smoke. Has there been an increase in the incidence of lung cancer among nonsmokers over the last 40 years? The answer is quite simply… No.
Data from national mortality studies show that rates of lung cancer among non-smoking women remained stable between the 1950’s to the 1980’s (very few women smoked during those years) and didn’t rise until substantial numbers of women started smoking in more recent years. These non-smoking women were included in numerous studies as control groups for examining lung cancer rates in their smoking spouses. As anti-smoking logic would dictate, the longer one is exposed to second hand smoke the more we should see a rise in lung cancer. However, when we examine the data from the studies noted above, we do not see such a rise in cancer rates for these non-smoking women.
In 1992, second hand smoke was labeled a Class A carcinogen: one that causes lung cancer and is responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans annually (U.S. EPA, 1993). However, there were no autopsies, no bodies, nor one person that could be claimed as a victim. The EPA did not base their classification on their own independent study but examined over thirty epidemiological studies (i.e., studies that attempt to correlate various risk factors with early death in different populations). Eleven of those studies were done in the United States, and of those eight found a positive risk, three found a negative risk but none of them were statistically significant (that is, none of the U.S. studies could make the statement that there was a causal relationship between second hand smoke and cancer).
In medical research, a statistical confidence level of 95% means that there is only a five percent chance that a significant finding could be due to chance (i.e., a random result). In their interpretation of the epidemiological studies, the EPA made a critical procedural statistical alteration. They changed the confidence level to 90%. This statistical manipulation made it more likely that their findings would show significant negative health effects of second hand smoke, but also made more likely the potential for erroneous conclusions. Furthermore, the EPA did not take into consideration the factors independently associated with both the development of lung cancer and exposure to second hand smoke, factors that certainly could account for the purported relationship between second hand smoke and early death. Finally, they did not attempt to assure that the subjects were properly identified into the correct experimental group. The EPA left several important questions unanswered such as: Were the exposed cases truly ill with primary lung cancer? Had the subjects been smokers previously? Were they truly exposed to second hand smoke? And, did the subjects accurately report their exposure levels?
The EPA also classified second hand smoke as a carcinogen based on chemical “similarities” between inhaled mainstream smoke and environmental tobacco smoke. Their logic was that since inhaled tobacco smoke is a carcinogen, environmental tobacco smoke must also be. Inhaled mainstream smoke, however, contains chemicals at concentrations of up to one million times those found in environmental tobacco smoke (which is a combination of exhaled mainstream smoke and sidestream smoke). Further, deep inhalation affects the degree of exposure to those chemicals, as well as the deposition of those chemicals into the respiratory passages of the smoker. One of the frustrating issues is we do not know the chemical, or chemical compounds responsible for the link to lung cancer and/or heart disease. This leads to another difficult issue – the length of exposure to the chemical might not yield a linear relationship to the formation of cancer (also known as the exposure-risk relationship). Single dose exposure likely does not yield 100 percent incidence of carcinoma. For example, low exposures of materials in drinking water does not yield disease, but higher and longer exposures of materials – such as arsenic, certainly produce disease. Much as a single aspirin may produce the effect of headache relief, a large dose of aspirin will be toxic. What was not evident in many of these studies was a dose-response curve to second hand (passive) smoking and disease.
At the behest of Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Ca), the Congressional Research Service (CRS) spent two years examining reports and came up with the following conclusions regarding second hand smoke and lung cancer (Redhead and Rowberg, 1995):
(a) The statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking.
(b) It is possible that very few or even no deaths can be attributed to second hand smoke.
(c) If there are any lung cancer deaths from second hand smoke, they are likely to be concentrated among those subjected to the highest exposure levels (e.g., spouses).
(d) The absolute risk, even to those with the greatest exposure levels, is uncertain.
The CRS found that, what was considered an “obvious” conclusion by the EPA was, in fact, flawed. The EPA reasoned that if the smoke inhaled by a smoker was close enough in composition to that which is exhaled, then if one was carcinogenic the other must also be carcinogenic. This assumption is chemically incorrect and was rejected.
The CRS examination of the various studies concluded that someone exposed to significant second hand smoke—a spouse for example—might increase their risk of dying from lung cancer to 2/10 of one percent, while those who are exposed on the job would have less risk: 7/100 of one percent.
The most devastating opinion about the EPA’s decision to classify second hand smoke as a class A carcinogen, came from Federal Judge William Osteen who interviewed scientists for four years and in 1998 opined,
The Agency disregarded information and made findings based on selective information… [The EPA] deviated from its risk assessment guidelines; failed to disclose important (opposing) findings and reasons; and left significant questions without answers… Gathering all relevant information, researching and disseminating findings, were subordinate to EPA’s [goal of] demonstrating [that] ETS was a Group A carcinogen… In this case, the EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency’s public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act’s authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme…and to influence public opinion… While doing so, [the EPA] produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency’s researched evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer. (Osteen, 1998)
Because the EPA report was “advisory” and not “regulatory,” Judge Osteen’s indictment was reversed. However, it is important to note that the decision was reversed on a technical distinction, not the merits of the EPA’s report.
In another large-scale study, and in contradistinction to the EPA conclusions, the World Health Organization International Agency on Cancer published a report concluding that there was no statistically significant risk of lung cancer in non-smokers who lived or worked with smokers (Boffetta, et al, 1998). This study was the product of ten years of data gathered from seven European countries.
Health Risks of Second Hand Smoke
In a study spanning 16 U.S. cities, the U.S. Department of Energy researchers placed monitors on nonsmoking bartenders and waiters who worked in smoke-filled bars and restaurants to measure the amount of environmental tobacco. The conclusion was that the monitors detected minuscule amounts of tobacco products. (Jenkins, et al, 1999) The harm that might come from such minuscule amounts of exposure was calculated as “none” to “improbable harm”. The anti-tobacco forces have condemned this study because it was partly funded by the R.J. Reynolds Company. Later, a group of individuals visited the establishments and concluded that since they saw few individuals smoking, the study was flawed. In spite of this study being done by Oak Ridge National Laboratories, it was painted with a broad brush because of the funding from the tobacco industry.
Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is considered by many authorities to be an important component of indoor air pollution in part because it is often viewed as being equivalent to mainstream cigarette smoke (MS). It has been clearly demonstrated that ETS is not the same as MS. Side stream cigarette smoke (SS) is a major contributor to ETS. Side-stream smoke is generated under different conditions than MS, and as a result, has a different relative chemical composition. Exhaled MS, the second primary contributor to ETS, is a different material from that which leaves the cigarette butt and enters the lungs. Exhaled MS has been substantially depleted in vapor-phase constituents, and the particulate matter is likely to have increased its water content in the high-humidity environment of the respiratory tract. As the cigarette smoke, both SS and exhaled MS, enters the atmosphere, it is diluted by many orders of magnitude and subsequently undergoes both physical transformation and alterations in its chemical composition. Upon standing, or during air exchange from other sources, ETS continues to change… (Guerin, et al, 2000)
The science and chemistry of this field of research are complex, and if the conclusions reached do not meet with current public policy, the research scientist is often stereotyped as being “pro-tobacco”. Because these studies are expensive, and because tobacco companies often supply the grant funds to purchase the supplies, anti-tobacco advocates will often say this is equivalent to bribing the researchers. They sometimes fail to mention, however, the anti-tobacco-funded individuals who personally receive thousands of dollars to vent anti-tobacco research and lend their name to the anti-tobacco movement. One of those individuals, Stanton Glantz, a Ph.D. whose field of expertise is aerospace engineering, attempted to convince the EPA to accept that there were over 50,000 deaths a year, from cardiac events, attributed to second hand smoke. The Congressional Research office examined the statistics related to second hand smoke and cardiac events and determined that those numbers were implausible (Gravelle and Redhead, 1994)
And yet, the anti-smoking advocates continue to march their cause…
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) withdrew a 12-year-old petition that smoking be banned from all indoor workplaces. The withdrawal was based on a lack of evidence. The decision was taken to court in an attempt to force OSHA to reverse its decision. OSHA stated that it would regulate based on permissible levels of the various ingredients in environmental tobacco smoke, and the lawsuit was withdrawn on the grounds that OSHA would do nothing. (Henshaw, 2001)
It’s no wonder OSHA decided to withdraw its complaint, since even its own people couldn’t agree on a position. In 1997, Acting Assistant Secretary of OSHA, Greg Watchman aired his own view:
Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000). It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded. (Letter from Greg Watchman, 1997)
As with arsenic content in drinking water, for example, setting scientific numbers to permissible levels would compel the scientific community to make real statements as to levels that are acceptable. Given that science had already answered the question with a number of chemicals in tobacco, such a regulation would be a blow to all anti-smoking advocates and their contention that there is no “safe” level of second hand smoke.
With no scientific evidence to back his statement, Mayor Bloomberg of New York City proclaimed that bartenders inhale the equivalent of half a pack of cigarettes a day. In fact, a study from the U.K. showed that the average London bartender inhaled the equivalent of six cigarettes annually (about one quarter of a pack). (Matthews and MacDonald, 1998)
Perhaps one of the better studies was published in the British Medical Journal by epidemiologist James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat (2003). Their study of 35,000 Californians showed that lifelong exposure to a husband or wife’s smoke produced no increased risk of coronary heart disease or lung cancer among the non-smoking spouses. As with most who oppose the anti-tobacco lobby, Enstrom was forced to defend his study on the basis that it had received funding from a tobacco company. The study was condemned as biased, even though it was published in a peer-reviewed journal, the statistics were not flawed, and the conclusions were sound.
When the cigar lounge at Seattle's El Gaucho restaurant was closed because smoking in public places in the state of Washington became illegal, one of the reasons cited was to “protect the workers”. The premise of this law has no evidence. Suffice it to say, there is far more evidence to ban the sale of alcohol in bars and restaurants than cigar smoking. Every day in every major city there are deaths from people who have consumed alcohol and driven. Alcohol is directly responsible for about 100,000 deaths a year and an estimated 2.3 million years. Alcohol prohibition didn’t work. So why attempt to prohibit tobacco?
The press frequently overlooks inconsistent data when reporting about environmental tobacco smoke. The most recent example was when a group of radiologists noted that one-third of patients who had never smoked, but were exposed to “high levels” of second hand smoke, showed MRI changes in their lungs similar to the changes seen in smokers. What failed to make the mainstream news was that two-thirds of the patients who were listed as non-smokers, but exposed to “high levels” of second hand smoke, paradoxically, had lower diffusion through the lungs than the “low exposure” group. That is, they showed the opposite of changes seen with heavy smokers. Again, what made the news in most circles was that this was more proof about the negative effects of environmental tobacco smoke. What did not make the news was that the paradoxical report might prove the opposite of their conclusion. (Science Daily, 2007)
The Surgeon General was incorrect. Second hand smoke may be an irritant and an annoyance, but it’s not a cause of death. There are no body bags filled with those who have developed tumors or heart disease as a result of second-hand smoke. The body bags are filled, however, with scientists and physicians who dare go against the anti-smoking lobby and state the obvious—the science isn’t there. As much as they want to ban all smoking in all places, the health risk is grossly overstated. Whenever someone dies of lung cancer, such as Diane Reeves, the late wife of Christopher Reeves, the anti-smoking lobby uses the news as a media circus. They want to relate the unfortunate death to something… even if such a relationship has no basis in solid scientific research.
In 1633, the Catholic church condemned Galileo for asserting that the Earth revolves around the sun. Galileo was forced to recant his scientific findings to avoid being burned at the stake. This was a clear conflict between faith and science.
Terry Simpson is a physician - surgeon, writer, and avid cigar smoker. He is a regular contributor to Dog Watch Social Club -- and on occasions plays golf. This is his first submission to the Stogie Fresh Cigar Journal.
[Editor’s note: Most of the studies referenced in this article examined the effects of ETS where cigarette smoke was the major contributor. Since cigarette and cigar tobacco, though similar, have some substantive differences (see previous Cigar Science article), the specific effects of cigar ETS on health await future elucidation. Nevertheless, we believe that the current article identifies the kind of fuzzy logic that is often used by anti-tobacco researchers and demonstrates clearly that current legislation regarding ETS is based on faulty research, faulty logic, or both. Further, the current article has several points that are applicable to cigar smoke, including the fact that inhaled smoke is chemically different than exhaled smoke and that ETS is highly diluted and therefore cannot be compared equally with mainstream smoke.]
References
Boffetta, P., Agudo, A., Ahrens, W., et al. (1998). “Multicenter Case-Control Study of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Europe.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Vol. 90, No. 19:1440–50.
Enstrom, J. E. and Kabat, G. C. (2003, May 17) “Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98.” British Medical Journal, 326(7398): 1057. Available: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=155687
Gravelle, J. G., and Redhead, C. S. (1994, March 23). Congressional Research Office Memorandum “Discussion of Source of Claims of 50,000 Deaths from Passive Smoking.” “in response to request for information on the possible source of an estimated premature 50,000 deaths from passive smoking effects.” Available: http://www.nycclash.com/Cabinet/CRSDiscusses_50000_Deaths.html
Guerin, M. R., Jenkins, R. A., Tomkins, B. A. (2000). “The Chemistry of Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Composition and Measurement.” (Second Ed.) CRC Press.
Henshaw, J. L. (2001). "Withdrawal of Proposal." U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, Notice, Indoor Air Quality - Federal Register #66:64946. Available:
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=16954
Jenkins, R. A., Palausky, A., Counts, R. W., Bayne, C. K., Dindal, A. B., and Guerin, M. R. (1999). “Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Sixteen Cities in the United States as Determined by Personal Breathing Zone Air Sampling.” Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology. Oct-Dec;6(4):473-502.
Letter from Greg Watchman, Acting Ass’t Sec’y, OSHA, to Leroy J Pletten, PhD, July 8, 1997.
Matthews, R., and MacDonald, V. (1998). "Passive Smokers Inhale Six Cigarettes a Year." UK News Electronic Telegraph, Issue 1178. Available
http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/passmok2.htm
Osteen, W. L., United States District Judge (1998). "Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corporation, et al v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al." United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Winston-Salem Division, 6:93CV00370, 89-90. Available: http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm
Redhead, C. S. and Rowberg, R. E. (1995, November 14) CRS Report for Congress. “Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer Risk.” Retrieved November 2007 from the WWW. Available: http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/crs11-95.htm
Science Daily. (November 27, 2007). “Second hand smoke damages lung, MRIs show.” Available: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071126104424.htm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1993) “Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. ” National Institutes of Health. Monograph 4, NIH Publication No. 93-3605, August 1993. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/3/2009 6:10:53 PM |
Who's telling you you can't smoke?
If they ban smoking everywhere, where do you do it? | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/3/2009 6:59:59 PM |
Ha the Surgeon General the Don of the Phmaracy Industry. If I were to show Monograph 9 and a couple other a RECENT reports, the Surg Gen will be going aginist researh. I'll post a report that talks about the SG in regards to ETS and cigarsmoke.
I was a smoker for a long time so I am very aware of how the addiction can control your thought process, I don't really think I need a study to tell me that smoking is counter productive to good health, I can remember sitting in the smoking sections of restaurants and having non smokers gagging on my cigarette smoke, the reality is as long as they do not impose bans on public smoking addicts will continue to smoke and non smokers will be forced to get up and leave or inhale second hand smoke. I now realize how bad it is to be around a person smoking
I think the bans are great as far as they go but they need to go further, tobacco produces nicotine, nicotine is a mind altering designer drug that should require a prescription to purchase.
As far as your smoking it's your choice and it's my choice not to inhale your second hand smoke, so have a ball smoke all you want just don't do it where non smokers are | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/3/2009 7:11:18 PM | >>> nicotine is a mind altering designer drug that should require a prescription to purchase.
Why should Doctors have to waste their time with that?
>>> so have a ball smoke all you want just don't do it where non smokers are
And if its a privately owned business, do you have the right to dicate the terms in which you may be served? I mean, if its your house, I agree, it should be up to you- If its public property, like a school or court house, I agree, its a matter for the public- but if its a business? You don't like how the business is run, you don't have to take your business there.
I find it self-rightious to demand that the world must revolve around you- that your perferences should be law, while other peoples preferences should be criminalized. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/3/2009 7:31:05 PM |
nicotine is a mind altering designer drug that should require a prescription to purchase.
Why should Doctors have to waste their time with that?
Let me answer in two ways #1 if the purchasing of cigarettes requires a prescription it will make it harder for underage children to obtain and become addicted to tobacco #2 Why should doctors have to waste their time with cancer patients or people suffering with heart conditions or people with COPD.
If an establishment serves the general public then a ban on smoking will protect non smokers from having to inhale your 2nd hand smoke, some of those non smokers could be young children even infants who have little to no control over the air they breathe. If I am dining out or doing any number of things that involve the public why should I have to get up and leave because as a smoker you have the right to smoke | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/3/2009 9:31:59 PM |
If I am dining out or doing any number of things that involve the public why should I have to get up and leave because as a smoker you have the right to smoke
Because this is America and others have rights besides you. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/3/2009 10:01:05 PM |
nicotine is a mind altering designer drug that should require a prescription to purchase.
Damn if you are going to do that then you miles well do the same for alcohol, chocolate and caffeine as well. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/3/2009 10:37:02 PM |
Damn if you are going to do that then you miles well do the same for alcohol, chocolate and caffeine as well.
That's exactly my arguement in another related thread.
If you start with one, the others will soon follow. And it isn't a slippery slope arguement. Alcohol causes ten times the damage cigarettes do. Not only is it a health hazard, it causes that mind alteration being spoken about hear. But it alters to the mind to such a point that it makes people unable to control themselves and harm others. The only way to cause a cigarette smoker to have thoughts of killing anyone, is make them get a persciption for it, and them to find out their doctor is out of town for a week, or the pharmacy is closed--i.e.--deny them their habit.
If anyone makes me get a perscription for smokes--I will lobby to the depths of hell for the same for alcohol users!!! | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/4/2009 12:05:24 AM | Nicotine is a "designer drug"???
That's a good one.
Since when?
You can argue that nicotine levels have been ramped up in domestic cigarettes but nicotine is a naturally occurring chemical in the tobacco plant. Bottom leaves on a tobacco plant contain HUGE amounts of tobacco.
If you must argue the adulteration of domestic cigarettes by Big Tobacco, please at least argue honestly and specifically.
Because of their convenience and utility, cigarettes have become the "delivery system" of choice for the majority of people who are addicted to nicotine.
For those people who actually have the temerity to actually "enjoy" the use of tobacco, pipes and cigars remain the method of consumption and do not have the high rates of addiction or speed of use. I won't be so foolish as to argue that they do not come without some level of risk - they certainly do. However, do to the chemical composition and nature of the tobacco and lack of specific engineering that the cigarette has had, they do not have the specific risks of addiction and targeting of the lungs that the cigarette has due to the pH of cigarette tobacco - and the presence of the "filter - which is designed to be inhaled deeply into the lungs to deliver the greatest hit of nicotine possible.
As it stands, a certain amount of common sense could be applied to the smoking bans to appease non-smokers and smokers alike...but there seems to be a persistent need to demonize smokers that is going beyond common sense. It has not been shown that ETS is any more harmful than a variety of situations that non-smokers routinely expose themselves to such as car exhaust, campfires, barbeques, or similar environmental smoke, yet smokers are treated as pariahs because of the smell of tobacco becoming socially unacceptable. You'd think you were expelling Zyclon-B... but it is just burning biomass... nothing worse than that - seriously. People need to get a grip. Yes, in an enclosed space, no one needs to be exposed to your smoke, but out of doors...shut the hell up. You have zero right to complain. You do not have sole rights to the airspace. Period. And if you think it is doing you any serious harm, I submit to you anything else on the street is as well...it is purely psychological at this point. If someone at least makes the attempt to be downwind from you anyway... I mean there will always be pr*cks that blow smoke at you...life sucks. Move two seats over. Do you own the whole damn restaurant patio? (Well it would seem that in some municipalities - most lately, non-smokers think they do...the irony of car exhaust is lost on them)
Anyone who has performed the experiment of the "Phantom Smoker" has seen this for themselves. I have personally seen this upon entering an establishment with an unlit pipe, or speaking to friends who have done this. People who have waved their hands in front of their face, coughed, or complained...staff who have said "Sir you are not allowed to have that lit in here..."  and the psychological effect is marvelous to say the least. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/4/2009 12:51:35 AM |
Because this is America and others have rights besides you.
Your right this is America and others do have rights for instance children have the right not to be forced to breathe in your tobacco smoke
Damn if you are going to do that then you miles well do the same for alcohol, chocolate and caffeine as well.
Lame argument if you are indulging in alcohol or chocolate or caffiene or hamburgers I have a choice as to whether I want to follow suit, smoking tobacco takes away the freedom of choice as to whether others have to brethe in your noxious fumes
If you start with one, the others will soon follow. And it isn't a slippery slope arguement. Alcohol causes ten times the damage cigarettes do. Not only is it a health hazard, it causes that mind alteration being spoken about hear. But it alters to the mind to such a point that it makes people unable to control themselves and harm others. The only way to cause a cigarette smoker to have thoughts of killing anyone, is make them get a persciption for it, and them to find out their doctor is out of town for a week, or the pharmacy is closed--i.e.--deny them their habit.
If anyone makes me get a perscription for smokes--I will lobby to the depths of hell for the same for alcohol users!!!
When is the last time you saw a discarded bottle of alcohol start a forest fire? The prescription would be refillable for x number of cigarettes per month for a reasonable period of time, tobacco use is not a habit it is an addiction and as an addiction those who use are addicts as you say above take away my tobacco and I would have thoughts of killing someone. I think the sale of alcohol should be regulated closer and personally I could care less if it was ever sold again
Nicotine is a "designer drug"???
That's a good one.
Since when?
You can argue that nicotine levels have been ramped up in domestic cigarettes but nicotine is a naturally occurring chemical in the tobacco plant. Bottom leaves on a tobacco plant contain HUGE amounts of tobacco.
If you must argue the adulteration of domestic cigarettes by Big Tobacco, please at least argue honestly and specifically.
Because of their convenience and utility, cigarettes have become the "delivery system" of choice for the majority of people who are addicted to nicotine.
Nicotine is but one of close to 500 chemicals in cigarette tobacco, the main additive in tobacco is sugar which when lit forms another chemical called acetaldehyde
Quitting is difficult, it's not by accident and it's not through some natural process, quitting is difficult because the tobacco companies have added chemicals to tobacco to make it very hard to quit.
http://www.rimrock.org/resources/nicotine5.shtml
Additives are used to make cigarettes that provide high levels of 'free' nicotine which increases the addictive 'kick' of the nicotine. Ammonium compounds can fulfill this role by raising the alkalinity of smoke
Additives are used to enhance the taste of tobacco smoke, to make the product more desirable to consumers. Although seemingly innocuous the addition of flavorings making the cigarette 'attractive' and 'palatable' is in itself cause for concern.
Sweeteners and chocolate may help to make cigarettes more palatable to children and first time users; eugenol and menthol numb the throat so the smoker cannot feel the smoke's aggravating effects.
Additives such as cocoa may be used to dilate the airways allowing the smoke an easier and deeper passage into the lungs exposing the body to more nicotine and higher levels of tar.
Some additives are toxic or addictive in their own right or in combination. When additives are burned, new products of combustion are formed and these may be toxic or pharmacologically active.
Additives are used to mask the smell and visibility of side-stream smoke, making it harder for people to protect themselves and undermining claims that smoking is anti-social without at the same time reducing the health risks of passive smoking.
Nicotine is but one component in tobacco that makes it so difficult to quit, researchers ( http://www.rimrock.org/resources/nicotine5.shtmlhave) have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the effect smoking has on dopamine levels is not as a result of nicotine but is as a result of some chemical that they have added to tobacco and claim not to know what additive is responsible
"The decrease in this enzyme, known as monoamineoxidase (MAO), results in an increase in dopamine levels. Importantly, this particular effect is not caused by nicotine but by some additional, unknown compound in cigarette smoke. Nicotine itself does not alter MAO levels; it affects dopamine through other mechanisms. Thus, there may be multiple routes by which smoking alters the neurotransmitter dopamine to ultimately produce feelings of pleasure and reward".
Another chemical called acetaldehyde is produced when the sugar added to tobacco is burned
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/regulation/html/additives.html
"The results can be summarized as follows: 1 acetaldehyde does function as a positive reinforcer for rats. 2 acetaldehyde at equal doses (mg) to(-) nicotine is more effective at maintaining self-administration behaviour, 3 the endogenous opioid system is not involved in the maintenance of acetaldehyde self administration, and 4) combinations of nicotine and acetaldehyde produce supra-additive effects when self administered."43 (PM)
Smokers have a very difficult time quitting because the tobacco companies have engineered tobacco to be a very strong dependency producing product.
We do not have to make tobacco use or production illegal all we have to do is to pass laws letting the FDA do it's job if we remove the additives and lower the nicotine levels smokers will be able to quit much easier. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/4/2009 1:16:00 AM | Admittedly then from the content of your post and the research, nicotine is but one of many of the components of the domestic cigarette that make it an addictive product, designed to get its users hooked on it.
As I said, be specific. Thanks for being clear...that's all I asked. I don't think anyone who is being honest in the debate about smoking would say that Big Tobacco has gone out of their way over the last 100 years - the last 50 in particular - to make a product that is particularly and subversively addictive.
It just boggles my mind really.
What was so complicated...so wrong about wrapping some tobacco in some paper...or for that matter, in tobacco leaves or a pipe.
Oh, no. We have to spray it with extra nicotine. Or extra chemicals to make it burn at a certain rate, or make it sweeter or at a certain pH so you can inhale it more deeply...
Only in America.
Corporate greed. It will get you every time.
There is actually a book that describes this that was meant to be a film screenplay...it was, sadly never made (I wonder why...duh) called "The Tobacco Men" by Borden Deal in 1965 that describes actual history dramatized of the rise of Big Tobacco at the turn of the century how gangland style wars were fought for control of the tobacco industry in Kentucky. Worth reading if you are interested in the subject matter. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/4/2009 1:27:16 AM |
If they ban smoking everywhere, where do you do it?
Then it's an illegal product, so your initial statement doesn't apply.
not that I think they will, you'll just be forced to smoke where nobody else has to smell or inhale it. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/4/2009 1:33:06 AM | Your right this is America and others do have rights for instance children have the right not to be forced to breathe in your tobacco smoke
How about taking the kids somewhere that is smoke free if that is the big concern.
When is the last time you saw a discarded bottle of alcohol start a forest fire?
I can't remember, pink elephants were dancing nearby, because I was drunk.
But cigarettes didn't have anything to do with it. Maybe we should get prescriptions for lighters. God knows the kids would go nuts trying to rub two sticks together to be rebel underage smokers.
There a lot of fires caused by drunks who discarded their cigarettes in an unsafe manner though. In fact aren't a lot of forest fires caused by campers. Bet quite a few of them had a bit of the sauce in 'em.
I think the sale of alcohol should be regulated closer and personally I could care less if it was ever sold again
Me neither. I drink so rarely anymore after I passed out with a lit cigarette and started a fire in the alley behind my house. All the neighbors were really pi*sed about that smoke they had to inhale--but it wasn't secondhand--that is for sure. But what really upset them is the fact that the firefighters took so long to get there. They said it was because the union firefighters were on strike for unsafe working conditions, but we knew the truth, the only bar that allowed smoking was over 45 minutes away and they had to make that extra long trek at a slower speed because they didn't have working sirens due to budget cuts and they were afraid of getting DUI's. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/4/2009 2:58:04 AM | Lame argument if you are indulging in alcohol or chocolate or caffiene or hamburgers I have a choice as to whether I want to follow suit, smoking tobacco takes away the freedom of choice as to whether others have to brethe in your noxious fumes
This quote is a lame attempt at a counterpoint. Oh yes, these substances are just choices and no one can get addicted to them what so ever. Is that why there are soo many people that are alcoholics, caffeine addics and chocoholics in the world? It's been proven that alcohol, caffeine and chocolate can be addictive substances. It's also been proven that genetics can play a role in addictive substances becoming more addictive to some people then in others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholism#Alcohol_withdrawal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine#Tolerance_and_withdrawal
http://www.taste.com.au/news+features/articles/632/chocoholics+like+drug+addicts
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/addiction/genetics/
That's hypocritical. You want people to stop smoking because it takes away "your" freedom of choice, but yet you are taking away their freedom of choice to smoke by wanting to ban it. That's a slippery slope towards totalitarianism. Furthermore look at what happened when America tried to ban alcohole in the 1920's and how well did that work out for America? You ban Tobacco products and make them iilegal and the same thing is going to happen. You will create a black market for it just like what happened when America outlawed alcohole. You just can't ban a substance that's been apart of a countries lifestyle for 100's of years and not expect any major reprocutions to come from it. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/4/2009 3:32:03 AM | This quote is a lame attempt at a counterpoint if I ever seen one. Oh Yes these substances are just choices and no one can get addicted to them what so ever. Is that why there are many people that are alcoholics, caffeine attics and chocoholics . It's been proven that alcohol, caffeine and chocolate can be addictive substances. It's also been proven that genetics can play a role in these substances becoming more addictive to some people then in others.
That's hypocritical. You want people to stop smoking because it takes away "your" freedom of choice but yet, you are taking away their freedom of choice to smoke by wanting to ban it. That's a slippery slope towards totalitarianism.
Actually alcohol and tobacco contain one of the same addictive chemicals called " acetaldehyde" Phillip Morris discovered that by adding sugar to tobacco they could increase the addictiveness of tobacco three fold. Alcoholics who smoke find it easier to quit drinking then to quit smoking.
Any thing can become addictive but cigarettes are harder to quit then the majority of addictive substances and activities and are more hazardous to your health and the health of others then chocolate and sex.
Yes I would like to see every one quit smoking but since that is not likely I would like to see non smokers have the right to go out to public places and public functions without having to inhale your smoke. I would like to see it made harder for under age smokers to obtain cigarettes and tobacco products
Smokers are drug addicts in denial about the effects that smoking will have on them and those around them. I was an addict addicted to smoking for 40 years so I under stand your mind set at your age I had not got to the point of where I knew what smoking was doing to me personally nor did I under stand the potential health effects my addiction would cause for the people around me, today my daughter suffers with stress induced ashma caused by her mother and I smoking in her presence. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/4/2009 4:02:07 AM | You got that backwards. It's harder to quit drinking then it is smoking. Alcochlism is the 5th worst drug addiction. Tobacco is the 9th worst drug addiction.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-03-23-drug-study_N.htm
Anything can become addictive, when was the last time you heard someone being a vegetable addic?
People have a right to smoke in public areas not privately owned. Who gives anyone the right to tell me that I can't smoke a cigar in my fishing boat on a public lake?
I don't think any reasonable person that smokes is in denial about the dangers of smoking and the people around them. Everyone knows the risk of smoking just like drinking, its peoples own lack of responsibility that put others at risk. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/4/2009 4:52:10 AM | According to the URL you supplied both tobacco and alcohol are rated in the top ten as hazardous substances
LONDON (AP) — New "landmark" research finds that alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than some illegal drugs like marijuana or Ecstasy and should be classified as such in legal systems, according to a new British study.
In research published Friday in The Lancet magazine, Professor David Nutt of Britain's Bristol University and colleagues proposed a new framework for the classification of harmful substances, based on the actual risks posed to society. Their ranking listed alcohol and tobacco among the top 10 most dangerous substances
I don't personally care if you smoke it's your life and your health my concern is for the non smokers and children who will be forced to inhale your toxic fumes so I support smoking bans in all public places, I would support a law making it a requirement for tobacco users to get a prescription to purchase tobacco products, tobacco should not be displayed in a way that appeals to children and should be be kept out of their sight, Your prescription could be renewable in a quanity that would support your addiction.The tobacco companies should be forced to pay for the doctors visits you need to obtain your prescription
From the same URL you supplied:
Tobacco causes 40% of hospital illnesses, while alcohol is blamed for more than half of all visits to emergency rooms.
No where in this article did I read about alcohol being harder to quit then tobacco but who cares both are hazardous to the health of the user but alcohol use does not have the same potential to cause disease to non users that tobacco does and that's the point | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/4/2009 5:12:50 AM |
You got that backwards. It's harder to quit drinking then it is smoking. Alcochlism is the 5th worst drug addiction. Tobacco is the 9th worst drug addiction.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-03-23-drug-study_N.htm
Actually, your link does not support your assertion. The rankings in the report you cite are for the degree of danger associated with each drug, with addiction level just one of the factors considered.
Nutt and colleagues used three factors to determine the harm associated with any drug: the physical harm to the user, the drug's potential for addiction, and the impact on society of drug use. The researchers asked two groups of experts — psychiatrists specializing in addiction and legal or police officials with scientific or medical expertise — to assign scores to 20 different drugs, including heroin, cocaine, Ecstasy, amphetamines, and LSD.
And while experts were consulted, this ranking really just amounts to an opinion poll of those experts. Haven't I seen somewhere a more scientific comparison of various addictions?
Dave | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/4/2009 5:23:35 AM | Yes and as I stated according to the article, Alcohol in which you were talking about being less addictive then Tobacco is actually more addictive, which is why it ranks 5th in worst drug addictions and Tobacco ranks 9th.
So wait, you say that tobacco needs to be prescribed because it appeals to children, but yet all those coke ads with the kids drinking coke and all those m&m ads with the talking peanuts and all of those Dos Equis beer ads portraying a cool guy drinking beer doesn't appeal to kids in anyway? All of those 3 s addictive substances can be just as deadly as smoking when abused.
We already know the dangers of alcohol and what deadly effect it has on the body. You can die from caffeine toxicity and eating too much chocolate over the years can cause diabetes, which is also deadly.
Then you must have miss this.
Nutt and colleagues used three factors to determine the harm associated with any drug: the physical harm to the user, the drug's potential for addiction, and the impact on society of drug use.
Heroin and cocaine were ranked most dangerous, followed by barbiturates and street methadone. Alcohol was the fifth-most harmful drug and tobacco the ninth most harmful. Cannabis came in 11th, and near the bottom of the list was Ecstasy.
Why would alcohol be the 5th worst drug addiction and Tobacco be the 9th worst drug addiction if Alcohol addiction was easier to quit then Tobacco addiction. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/4/2009 5:26:30 AM |
Actually, your link does not support your assertion. The rankings in the report you cite are for the degree of danger associated with each drug, with addiction level just one of the factors considered.
It does support it. If something is more addictive wouldn't you think it would be harder to quit? I think so and the article agrees with that assertion which is why alcohol is ranked 4 spots higher then tobacco as the worst drug addictions.
Well if you can find a better source that disproves that their testing was wrong then link it. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/4/2009 5:44:54 AM |
It does support it. If something is more addictive wouldn't you think it would be harder to quit?
Yes I do, but the study does not support that assertion. It combined THREE factors, of which potential for addiction was only one. And it did not investigate the chemical bonds of various drug components with neurons, or any number of other tangible physical aspects. It just asked for opinions from various experts. One might as well have taken a poll here on POF and cited the results as conclusive evidence.
Even if one were to accept the experts opinions as infallible, it could well be that the physical harm to user or impact on society components were the deciding factors in relative rankings of tobacco and alcohol, not potential for addiction. We just don't know, because the article does not give us that information.
I'm not taking a side on this one way or the other. I've been addicted to tobacco. Alcohol doesn't affect me that way, but I know it does cause addiction problems for others. All I was saying was that you had failed to prove your point. That doesn't mean you're wrong, just that your citation does not support your assertion.
Dave | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 6/4/2009 5:59:07 AM | | That's where I disagree. When they did the testing on these drugs they found out that alcohol was indeed a worse addiction then tobacco. Now you can take their findings anyway you like, but what that tells me is that when something is a harsher substance, then the other, it will be harder to quit that substance. But if you can provide a better article that disproves their research with stats, i'd like to see it considering that there isn't a lot of articles abut this subject that I was able to find on it atleast. | |
|
|
| Page 10 of 13
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
|
Home
login 
