Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > smoking bans      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Hozo
Joined: 8/1/2006
Msg: 249
view profile
History
smoking bansPage 12 of 16    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)

I'm not suggesting the numbers are exactly accurate or that they're not derived statistically. But suggesting that any and all diseases that are simply aggravated by smoking are included in smoking related death stats is patently wrong.



I am the one who suggested that earlier. Since none of the grouping of scare stats adds up or self-proves the entire grouping, I am supposing any theory goes.


The whole section should reflect this and the paragraph should have been:

Translation: Every current smoker, former smoker, or 2nd hand smoke victim who suffers from an affliction or disease, that is linked to smoking in any way, shape, or form, seems to be wholly included as a statistic.


...these are simply personal scenarios that I am throwing out there, since the grouping of stats posted cannot correctly be self-proven, and nothing is shown to validate this questionable discrepancy.




We'll likely never prove that certain heart conditions are caused by smoking. However when no other epidemiology exists, what would the logical conclusion be? If you're the first person in your family to have a heart attack, would you blame genetics or the pack of smokes you go through every day?


I don't know. Personally, I believe there are a whole host of causes/reasons/factors/correlations. My personal experience working in a steel mill prove that to me, yet my increased insurance rates due to touching tobacco to my lips at some point in my life seem to be the one-and-only stereotyping factor. Nobody can ever say for sure. Its all educated guessing based on factors. Nevertheless, it ends up being a smoking related cause of death! I end up being a member of this line:


1 out of every 5 died from smoking related causes


Is this ALL CAUSE, CAUSE and CORRELATION both, or all CORRELATION?


That is the crux of my arguement here. Should there be blame, or suggestion of blame? did it CAUSE, or is it a CORRELATION? Somebody makes that decision, and it seems from the data that some magical step is taken which blurs these lines and paints it all as a CAUSE of affliction. CAUSE blamed on tobacco, if you are a tobacco user in any way, shape or form, much like the twin-brothers scenario. How could it not be?


Here's the CDC link to what diseases are included in smoking related death stats...

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/


Its that very methodology that is wholly subject to interpertation. Just looking at the layout of the table shows the slant that tobacco is basically guilty, unless proven otherwise. It PROVES that tobacco is a deciding factor at the top, but does NOT equally prove that tobacco did NOT play a factor at the bottom. It's a guilty-until-proven-otherwise philosophy wholly.

I remember when news anchor Peter Pennings died of lung cancer, followed a few months later by Superman wife Dana Reeves.

~Peter Jennings smoked in his youth, quit, then died of lung cancer at age 67. Since he smoked, and didnt live to the average age of 77, his smoking CAUSED his death.

Case closed.

if he never smoked, he still may have contracted lung cancer like Dana Reeves

Seems no correlating factor was ever entertained, because...

~Dana Reeves never smoked, and died of lung cancer at age 44. Since she never smoked, and didnt live to the average age of 77, her death is not attributed to smoking.

Case NOT closed. Let the correlating begin.

But if she ever touched tobacco to her lips, would her lung cancer have been a correlating factor, or the CAUSE of her lung cancer? Would her and Jennings be in the same pile if so??

In conclusion, non-smokers almost ALWAYS have an airtight alibi. Sm0kers on the other hand, almost ALWAYS do not.

This is another questionable area in this whole methodology....smoking is an automatic(for the most part) deciding factor when placing blame.

Peter Jennings may have developed lung cancer even if he never smoked. But that scenario pretty much becomes obliterated as soon as you touch tobacco to your lips.

Much like the twin brothers scenario. You used tobacco at a point in your life. Your twin brother is identical to you, weighs the same, dies of the same health problems as you, but never touched a cigarette to his lips, and dies the same day as you, he is considered a heart disease stat, but you have crossed that line to being a smoking stat in this cherry-picked grouping, because heart disease is a smoking related cause, and you used tobacco. Its a simple 1+1=2 determination. The statistical stereotype and subsequent profiling seem par for the statistical course.

Another example is the well known but never repeated truth that smoking does not kill every smoker, but statistically, it does:

~Grandpa smoked all his life, and died at the ripe old age of 92 from complications of heart disease.
~His older brother never smoked, but died years ago at 62 from complications of heart disease.


Because he smoked, Grandpa's death is a smoking statistic, but his brother's premature death is not.

If the roles were reversed, nothing changes....it only makes matters worse for Grandpa because now, Grandpa died prematurely from a smoking related cause(that's a negative 2-for-1), and in comparison, his non-smoking brother outlived him by a few decades(thats a positive 2-for-1). Grandpa is always the villian statistic to some variable degree.


Except... That is not where or how, the researchers typically get their numbers from... They typically take the raw death rates (which really NEVER say anything about smoking) for the diseases they choose to include (which almost always go beyond the ones listed on the page you linked to) and multiply that by the derived risk factors to arrive at a theoretical number of deaths from smoking


Again, it seems if research shows that 70% of smokers are afflicted with something specific, then that majority percentage proves that smoking is the culprit, therefore the cause. BUT... when this cause is applied statistically, it is applied to mostly the 100% of future smokers who contract that affliction. It has become an accepted cause, and applied accordingly.

The affect that has on the common folk is no different than saying that for example, 70% of crime is commited by men, therefore extrapolation shows that men are overwhelmingly criminals, while at the same time absolving women, and/or any other factors that apply. It is stereotyped that men are the most notorious sex on the planet, barring any other causes/reasons/factors/correlation. They become unimportant in this pyramid-type setup.

That one scenario shows one factor of skewing, and that may be one reason the scare statistical grouping doesnt add up, amoung other factors.
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 250
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/8/2011 10:11:58 AM

Again, it seems if research shows that 70% of smokers are afflicted with something specific, then that majority percentage proves that smoking is the culprit, therefore the cause. BUT... when this cause is applied statistically, it is applied to mostly the 100% of future smokers who contract that affliction. It has become an accepted cause, and applied accordingly.

The affect that has on the common folk is no different than saying that for example, 70% of crime is commited by men, therefore extrapolation shows that men are overwhelmingly criminals, while at the same time absolving women, and/or any other factors that apply. It is stereotyped that men are the most notorious sex on the planet, barring any other causes/reasons/factors/correlation. They become unimportant in this pyramid-type setup.

That one scenario shows one factor of skewing, and that may be one reason the scare statistical grouping doesnt add up, amoung other factors.


I have provided you with the numbers

305,689,000 population of the USA 2007
43,000,000 were smokers in 2007
2.5 million Americans died in 2007
1 out of every 5 died from smoking related causes
20% of 2.5 is around 500,000

2.5 million out of 43,000,000 smokers died in 2007, out of those 2.5 million 500,000 deaths were attributed to smoking that is 20% not 70%, 70% of 2.5 million would be 1.75 million.

Because we don't know all of the factors that contributed to the deaths of those 2.5 million who died their may have been more or less deaths directly related to smoking, again I do believe that it probably takes more then one risk factor to cause a persons death, but you may have only to eliminate one risk factor to prevent a death.

You can bend it, twist it, turn it ,any way you want to but in the end smoking is a major risk factor in illness and disease, non smokers should not have to breathe in the toxic fumes from others, non smokers should not have to get up and leave any public establishment because a smoker decides to light up.

I would support new bars and new restaurants that were for smokers only, employees would know before hand that they were applying to work in an establishment that allowed smokers, minors would not be allowed in a smoking establishment, I have no idea of how they would remain in business when less then 20% of the population smokes

Bottom Line SMOKING KILLS so................................. I support smoking bans and believe that the laws should be toughter making it harder for preteens and teens to obtain tobacco, I write to my reps and express my feelings and ask them to push for prescription only tobacco and toughter laws to discourage teens from openingly smoking
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 251
smoking bans
Posted: 2/8/2011 6:09:29 PM
Okay Mungo, you're right. It's just that you're quoting from stuff that is all a few years old.

ALL a FEW YEARS old...?!?

The majority of it was updated within the last 18 months...

The field has recently advanced and the latest researchers are showing a caustive effect of smoking to Crohn's Disease.

CAUSATIVE effect... ?!? Gee, that's a stretch that even the authors you quoted don't attempt to assert...

Now, before I go deeper into it, I'll deal with just the parts you quoted...

Here are the objectives...

Smoking behavior and genetic variations are important factors for the development of Crohn's disease (CD), but studies investigating the interaction between smoking and genetic background are scarce. We studied allelic associations of 19 confirmed variants located in 14 CD-associated genes or loci, in CD patients stratified for active smoking at diagnosis and passive smoking in childhood.Smoking behavior and genetic variations are important factors for the development of Crohn's disease (CD), but studies investigating the interaction between smoking and genetic background are scarce. We studied allelic associations of 19 confirmed variants located in 14 CD-associated genes or loci, in CD patients stratified for active smoking at diagnosis and passive smoking in childhood.

You will notice that they mention 19 SNP's on 14 loci and yet they found differences for less than 3/4 of the loci and less than 2/3 of the SNPs (with non-smokers showing more associations than smokers)... For the remaining loci and SNPs there were no differences (or they would have reported them)... The only thing that even begins to show is how smoking exascerbates Crohn's... It says less than nothing to dispute the necessity of the genetic predisposition for Crohn's (because the study also demonstrates that Crohn's occurs and is genetically-linked even when smoking as a risk factor isn't present)...

NOW... Let's look at how you falsified the information in the abstract...

Here are the conclusions...

The difference in associated genes between smoking and non-smoking CD patients implies a complex gene–environment interaction. Causative effect was only associated in the smoking CD cohort (P=0.041), and not in the entire cohort (P=0.23) or in the non-smoking CD cohort. Therefore, genetic studies of CD should be stratified for smoking behavior as otherwise moderately associated genes such as PTPN2 can be missed.

Here is the ACTUAL wording of the published abstract...

CONCLUSIONS: The difference in associated genes between smoking and non-smoking CD patients implies a complex gene-environment interaction. Therefore, genetic studies of CD should be stratified for smoking behavior, as otherwise moderately associated genes such as PTPN2 can be missed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19953089?dopt=AbstractPlus

http://www.nature.com/ajg/journal/v105/n5/full/ajg2009659a.html

The line...

...Causative effect was only associated in the smoking CD cohort (P=0.041), and not in the entire cohort (P=0.23) or in the non-smoking CD cohort....

...is NOT to be found ANYWHERE in the 'Conclusions'... or even the ENTIRE abstract... Not even when sourced from the American Journal of Gastroenterology's OWN portal... Hell, not even the words "cause" or "causative" can be found in that abstract...

Okay Mungo, you're right...

Apparently you must believe I am... I mean if you have to post proveable falsehoods to make your point...

Now... if what you really want to do is play "duelling journal articles", I can top you... Let's see, yours was May 2010 and says 'dick' about genetics not being THE necessary precondition for Crohn's... Here's one from January 2011 (and you won't even have to pay for this one)...

A Meta-Analysis of Genome-Wide Association Scans Identifies IL18RAP, PTPN2, TAGAP, and PUS10 As Shared Risk Loci for Crohn's Disease and Celiac Disease

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1001283

This one supports the "genetics" hypothesis of Crohn's by identifying common loci/SNP between Crohn's and the associated inflammatroy bowel disease (IBD), celiac disease (also an auto-immune disorder)... and, even more interestingly, what research there is indicates that smoking may serve as an inoculant for celiac disease... Sharing common genetic features with another autoimmune IBD, particularly one with an inverse relationship to smoking, says a whole lot more about the importance of genetic predispositions as cause than that one you posted above says about smoking...

Actually, I was just teasing about that "duelling journals" thing... After the way you "invented" those conclusions, I don't think there is any real need...


I never said it was... Perhaps you might want to go back and read what I wrote instead of implying false attributions... In fact, if I recall correctly (and I do) my example never even said I died from Crohn's disease

Well, unless I'm missing something you said exactly that....

Yes, you are missing something... Personally, I believe it is SO obvious that a person as educated as yourself should be able to see it... Perhaps there is something to that adage about forests and trees...
Here, listen to yourself. You'll enjoy it...

Thanks... I will... perhaps you will pick up on what you are missing... I'd explain it but I'm having too much fun watching you miss it...

Let's assume that I have Crohn's Disease and am notoriously bad at maintaining a "Crohn's friendly diet"... heavy smoking has been linked to the exacerbation of the SYMPTOMS of Crohn's Disease, but has NO established relationship as causative factor for Crohn's in the first place (in other words, it makes the symptoms more intense, but does not cause the disease itself)... If I were to die from peritonitis because my Crohn's led to a perforated bowel (an ulcer eats through my colon and everything leaks into my abdomen), the anti-smoking lobby would lump my death in with all the others as a "smoking related death" even though the smoking itself didn't cause my death...
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 252
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/8/2011 8:16:43 PM

Let's assume that I have Crohn's Disease and am notoriously bad at maintaining a "Crohn's friendly diet"... heavy smoking has been linked to the exacerbation of the SYMPTOMS of Crohn's Disease, but has NO established relationship as causative factor for Crohn's in the first place (in other words, it makes the symptoms more intense, but does not cause the disease itself)... If I were to die from peritonitis because my Crohn's led to a perforated bowel (an ulcer eats through my colon and everything leaks into my abdomen), the anti-smoking lobby would lump my death in with all the others as a "smoking related death" even though the smoking itself didn't cause my death...



Definition of EXACERBATE
: to cause (a disease or its symptoms) to become more severe


I would have to disagree, why? smoking increases the severity of Crohn's disease making it more likely that if you develope Crohn's you will die of Crohn's, since smoking is a factor in the development of Crohn's and smoking increases the severity of Crohns a logical conclusion would be that if the person never smoked he/she may never have developed the disease and had he/she developed Crohns it would not have caused their death

http://www.bsg.org.uk/patients/patients/general/crohn-s-disease.html


What causes it?
It is thought that Crohn’s disease develops as a result of the immune system in the intestine reacting abnormally to bacteria at the surface of the gut. This abnormal immune reaction is likely to be inherited: a number of genes that may contribute to causing Crohn’s disease have now been identified, mostly involved in how we handle bacteria in the gut. It is still not known if one, a few or many types of bacteria are involved. Other factors affect the chances of getting Crohn’s disease, with smoking being the most important risk factor. Many patients ask whether there is a dietary cause but there is no firm evidence of this.


Again since they have no positive proof on what causes Crohn's smoking can not be eliminated as a cause

I was not able to find a link that said the anti smoking lobby attributed any death's from Crohn's disease to smoking, but I will keep looking, maybe you have one or maybe you just used crohn's disease as an example?
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 253
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/8/2011 8:20:39 PM

Causative effect was only associated in the smoking CD cohort (P=0.041), and not in the entire cohort (P=0.23) or in the non-smoking CD cohort.


How the f'ck would I make that up? I have no idea what a cohort is or what P=0,041 is. That's totally ridiculous. I'm looking at the web site right now and this is exactly how it is written. I'm not as sharp as you when it comes to interpretting the weird information so I'm giving you that one. You're right.


the anti-smoking lobby would lump my death in with all the others as a "smoking related death" even though the smoking itself didn't cause my death


But this is still a mistake though. The lobby groups I've looked at use stats from the Surgeon General. And as you all now know, those stats aren't inclusive of crohn's or just ANY ole disease. Maybe you could explain what I'm missing?


Its that very methodology that is wholly subject to interpertation. Just looking at the layout of the table shows the slant that tobacco is basically guilty, unless proven otherwise. It PROVES that tobacco is a deciding factor at the top, but does NOT equally prove that tobacco did NOT play a factor at the bottom. It's a guilty-until-proven-otherwise philosophy wholly.

I remember when news anchor Peter Pennings died of lung cancer, followed a few months later by Superman wife Dana Reeves.

~Peter Jennings smoked in his youth, quit, then died of lung cancer at age 67. Since he smoked, and didnt live to the average age of 77, his smoking CAUSED his death


In regards to lung cancer, I know doctors can tell the difference between cancers caused by environmental factors. Mesothelioma of the lungs is caused by asbestos and is not related to smoking or caused by smoking. It can be worsened by smoking, but your cause of death would not be smoking even though you have a form of lung cancer. I think you are correct in that there are circumstances that are tricky and that will result in some false positives and some false negatives. But that's the case with all statistics. I'm not sure what the plus or minus is on smoking stats but they're not enough to cause such an uproar.

And lastly, from The Surgeon General's report 2010 Introduction and Approach to Causal Effect.....


Laboratory research now reveals how smoking causes disease at the molecular and cellular levels. Fortunately for former smokers, studies show that the substantial risks of smoking can be reduced by successfully quitting at any age


The diseases included in smoking related death stats all have enough evidence to "infer a causal relationship". 100% proof? No. But it seems pretty obvious to me that these stats are not conclusivly 100% accurate but are close enough to get the picture. Close enough for sure to enforce omni smoking bans.
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 254
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/9/2011 7:27:32 AM

Let's assume that I have Crohn's Disease and am notoriously bad at maintaining a "Crohn's friendly diet"... heavy smoking has been linked to the exacerbation of the SYMPTOMS of Crohn's Disease, but has NO established relationship as causative factor for Crohn's in the first place (in other words, it makes the symptoms more intense, but does not cause the disease itself)... If I were to die from peritonitis because my Crohn's led to a perforated bowel (an ulcer eats through my colon and everything leaks into my abdomen), the anti-smoking lobby would lump my death in with all the others as a "smoking related death" even though the smoking itself didn't cause my death...


Below you will find an excerpt that CLEARLY identifies genetic and environmental factors as being …….. Are you ready for this……………… the cause, development, and effects of a disease


http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1001283


Crohn's disease (CD) and celiac disease (CelD) are chronic intestinal inflammatory diseases, involving genetic and environmental factors in their pathogenesis. The two diseases can co-occur within families, and studies suggest that CelD patients have a higher risk to develop CD than the general population. These observations suggest that CD and CelD may share common genetic risk loci
]

Since early childhood I have had in interest in medicine in fact I received an electronic microscope for my fifth birthday because I asked for it. I wanted to be a medical researcher and find cures for diseases like cancer, alas you can want to dunk a basketball and if you are 5’5” tall and can’t jump you can not do it

On to the present we are discussing smoking bans and in that discussion we some how got off track with you and others claiming that the stats being used were manufactured, misleading or cherry picked by the *rabid anti-smoking lobby and I found myself part of the lobby or maybe even the rabid leader

You used Crohn’s disease **hypothetically in an attempt to show that the rabid anti smoking lobby “ which I am now find myself a member or leader of ” tries to blame every death of every smoker as a stat that makes smoking appear to be worst then it is. I could find no source to verify that my anti smoking lobby friends use Crohn’s disease to further their crusade, before we drift along I said “I” can find no source to verify that my anti-smoking buddies and budettes use Crohn’s disease and I do believe that in a prior message I did acknowledge that you may have only picked Crohn’s for demonstrating your conclusions about the anti’s

As it turns out it was a bad choice because it appears that smoking can be a cause for the development of Crohn’s


Crohn's disease (CD) and celiac disease (CelD) are chronic intestinal inflammatory diseases, involving genetic and environmental factors in their ***pathogenesis. The two diseases can co-occur within families, and studies suggest that CelD patients have a higher risk to develop CD than the general population. These observations suggest that CD and CelD may share common genetic risk *****“loci”


Let’s create a hypothetical situation

I am or you are driving down the road smoking a cigarette and the end falls into your lap, you feel the burning and look for just a second to see what is burning you, during that split second of inattention to driving you hit and kill three people in a crosswalk, you loose control of your vehicle and run into a pole killing yourself. What caused the accident and what are the contributing factors and how do you separate one from the other.

If you were not driving the accident would have never taken place
If you were not smoking the accident may not of ever happened
If the pedestrians were not walking in the crosswalk the accident may have never taken place
If the pole was not there you may have survived the accident

If you remove any of the contributing factors no one may have died that day.

In my not so humble and uneducated opinion modern medicine is still in the stone age, if not there would be definite causes for illnesses and diseases and possibly cures. Until then if you remove any risk factor or any known cause you “may” have saved a life.

In my not so humble opinion the rabid smoker’s rights groups are in denial and possibly receive funding from the tobacco companies

In my newly acquired status as a rabid anti smoker lobbyist or supporter of the rabid anti smoker lobby I believe that bans against smoking are for the good of all people

*fanatical: very enthusiastic about an idea, belief, or activity, often to the point of being blind to other opinions, beliefs, or preferences
intense: feeling or showing an emotion or need extremely intensely a rabid lust for power
violent: marked by ferociousness or violence medicine veterinary medicine having rabies: infected with rabies
**hy·po·thet·i·cal: involving ideas or possibilities: existing as or involving something that exists as an unproven idea, theory, or possibility
***path·o·gen·e·sis: origins and effects of disease: the cause, development, and effects of a disease
**** extracted part: a section or passage taken from a longer work such as a book, movie, musical composition, or document
***** DNA analysis for medical purposes: the analysis of DNA samples of a group of people, carried out in order to find out whether they carry the genes associated with specific inherited diseases or disorders

Please take note that I stuck to the issue of smoking bans and did not engage in personal attacks on anyones character
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 255
smoking bans
Posted: 2/12/2011 2:18:59 PM


As it turns out it was a bad choice because it appears that smoking can be a cause for the development of Crohn’s


Crohn's disease (CD) and celiac disease (CelD) are chronic intestinal inflammatory diseases, involving genetic and environmental factors in their ***pathogenesis. The two diseases can co-occur within families, and studies suggest that CelD patients have a higher risk to develop CD than the general population. These observations suggest that CD and CelD may share common genetic risk *****“loci”

This does NOTHING to establish smoking causes Crohn's... Not one blessed thing... Even all of the epidemiological studies both of us have posted do NOT establish that... They establish nothing more than an association, but do not establish the specific nature of that association...

I will explain a couple of things here... First, "pathogenesis", used the way it is, doesn't mean what you seem to think it means... It DOES NOT mean that an association is tied to ALL three of cause, course and presentation... It means it may be tied to one, another, or more than one, but the kind of epidemiological studies conducted so far DO NOT establish which, specifically, the association is tied to... It MIGHT be tied to cause, it MIGHT be tied to course (development), it MIGHT be tied to presentation (effects), it MIGHT be tied to more than one, but there is no way of knowing from these kinds of population studies... The ONLY way to clearly establish which specific element the association is tied to is through controlled-trial experimentation (controlled-trial experimentation is where the researchers ACTUALLY try to cause the disease in subjects that don't have it, or cure/treat the disease in subjects that do, through specific manipulation of the suspected causes/cures/treatments while all other factors are strictly controlled for 'sameness') and NONE of the studies any of us have cited are controlled-trial experiments... This process is how we know smoking causes certain respiratory tract diseases (because experimenters were able to ACTUALLY cause the disease in subjects that did not have it through direct manipulation of smoking exposure)... Further, such controlled-trial experiments as have been done with Chrohn's have NOT established smoking as ANYTHING OTHER than a factor in course (progress) and presentation (effects)...

Perhaps it will help you to understand this difference if I recite a bit of "Crohn's history" for you... The specific cause of Crohn's was originally thought to be stress and diet... The associations that lead to this idea were discovered through the exact same kind of studies as used to establish the smoking association... These associations were as strong as the smoking association... Crohn's was treated as if this was the cause... UNTIL... clinical controlled-trial experiments were conducted... These controlled-trial experiments revealed the specific nature of the association that epidemiological studies can't... And those specific associations turned out to be NOT causal, but related to progression and presentation only...

Now I will juxtapose that, in very broad terms, with respiratory disease... Historically, the link between smoking and respiratory disease that HINTED at causality was first established by epidemiological studies, just as the link between diet/stress and Crohn's had been... When controlled-trial experiments of smoking and respiratory diseases were conducted to confirm this possible causal link it was confirmed, just as the HINT from the epidemiological studies indicated... but... when controlled-trial experiments of diet/stress and Crohn's were conducted to confirm this possible causal link it was refuted, contrary to the HINT from the epidemiological studies... Both cases where strong HINTS at causal linkage were obtained from epidemiological studies, but completely opposite outcomes when researchers attempted to confirm the HINT through controlled-trial experimentation... congruence in one case and incongruence in the other... THIS is the fundamental weakness in inferring causality from epidemiological studies alone...

The ONLY conclusion that can be reliably drawn from this is "if you ALREADY have Crohn's then smoking may make it worse in some regards", but NOT "smoking causes Crohn's" (this isn't even close to being proven as illustrated above)...

Let’s create a hypothetical situation

I am or you are driving down the road smoking a cigarette and the end falls into your lap, you feel the burning and look for just a second to see what is burning you, during that split second of inattention to driving you hit and kill three people in a crosswalk, you loose control of your vehicle and run into a pole killing yourself. What caused the accident and what are the contributing factors and how do you separate one from the other.

If you were not driving the accident would have never taken place
If you were not smoking the accident may not of ever happened
If the pedestrians were not walking in the crosswalk the accident may have never taken place
If the pole was not there you may have survived the accident

If you remove any of the contributing factors no one may have died that day.

This is a false analogy (in terms of causation), on a number of levels... For one, you are equivocating (by the use of "may", "may" does not imply "will")... You are also making a correlation/causation error in assuming that because events correlate to the scenario that they must bear a causative relationship (your "pedestrian" line for example... this is equivalent to declaring the raped women the cause of her rape because she wouldn't have been raped if she hadn't been in the park where she was raped. The same applies to your "pole" line)...

In fact, the outcome can be prevented without ever removing a single one of these elements... simply altering the way in which the driver responds to the fallen 'heater' can prevent the accident... the driver can pull over immediately rather than take his eyes off the road and the accident is prevented while all other factors remain exactly the same...

You used Crohn’s disease **hypothetically in an attempt to show that the rabid anti smoking lobby “ which I am now find myself a member or leader of ” tries to blame every death of every smoker as a stat that makes smoking appear to be worst then it is. I could find no source to verify that my anti smoking lobby friends use Crohn’s disease to further their crusade

I did choose Crohn's on purpose, but once again... I did not say that the "anti's" used "Crohn’s disease to further their crusade" although I did say that the "anti's" would use my death "to further their crusade"... You may want to look again at what I said I died from and the conditions which preceded that death... I'll help you out a bit... Here is what my death certificate would look like (I'll give you a couple of examples because there is more than one way in which it can lead to death)... entries in italics are my own explanatory comments, not actual entries in the death certificate...


Cause of Death, section 32, part 1 (each item listed in this part must have an approximate timeframe describing suspected time from onset to preceding outcome, if known or determinable, or be listed as unknown/uncertain)
a. cerebrovascular infarction (he might use the word "stroke" instead), minutes
due to (or as a consequence of)
b. thromboembolism, <24 hours
due to (or as a consequence of)
c. deep-vein thrombosis of the common iliac vein, unknown
due to (or as a consequence of)
d. unknown (or he might use the word "uncertain")

part 2 other significant conditions
hypercholesterolemia (my "Crohn's unfriendly" diet), smoking, Crohn's disease, localized peritonitis, free perforation of the transverse colon

section 33 autopsy
yes

section 34 autospy findings available
yes

section 35 tobacco contribution
unknown

or

Cause of Death, section 32, part 1 (each item listed in this part must have an approximate timeframe describing suspected time from onset to preceding outcome, if known or determinable, or be listed as unknown/uncertain)
a. acute myocardial infarction, minutes
due to (or as a consequence of)
b. thromboembolism, <24 hours
due to (or as a consequence of)
c. deep-vein thrombosis of the common iliac vein, unknown
due to (or as a consequence of)
d. unknown (or he might use the word "uncertain")

remainder as example above

Both causes of death are considered 'smoking related'... each of the conditions listed in part 2 are capable of producing the deep-vein thrombosis all on it's own but the doctor has no way to be certain which one did eventually lead to it (thrombii don't have little "made in..." tags on them, the source can only be guessed at when multiple potential sources are present) despite my Crohn's being the actual "first link in the chain" of my death... Since I am a smoker, I am ALREADY included in the smoker stats and because my death is from a 'smoking-related' cause (for which the underlying condition which may have led to it can't be determined at, or subsequent to, time of death), my death will be included with the 'smoking related' deaths even though smoking didn't cause it... Even though I died due to complications of my Crohn's, I am a smoking statistic simply because the doctor attending at time of death wasn't familiar enough with my case to say otherwise...

The whole point of it is...

There is more than enough evidence, based solely on the effects of tobacco smoke on respiratory disease, to justify the public smoking bans, advertising bans, etc. that currently exist... even to justify tightening them in some regards (like advertising for example)... without resorting to the kinds of distorted information and scare tactics the anti-smoking lobbies like to throw around... In my opinion, much of this orginates from those who want to frame the debate as some kind of grand moral issue (like the abolitionists of old or the "keep the gays in the closet" types of today) rather than a matter of choice... or... out of a personal dispute with tobacco companies (as in actually being more interested in "taking down 'Big Tobacco'" than the health of strangers)...
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 256
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/12/2011 3:22:06 PM

There is more than enough evidence, based solely on the effects of tobacco smoke on respiratory disease, to justify the public smoking bans, advertising bans, etc. that currently exist... even to justify tightening them in some regards (like advertising for example)... without resorting to the kinds of distorted information and scare tactics the anti-smoking lobbies like to throw around... In my opinion, much of this orginates from those who want to frame the debate as some kind of grand moral issue (like the abolitionists of old or the "keep the gays in the closet" types of today) rather than a matter of choice... or... out of a personal dispute with tobacco companies (as in actually being more interested in "taking down 'Big Tobacco'" than the health of strangers)...


At this point I think the fish is dead we have beat it to death, your a good debater very knowledgeable about the topic but I have presented two reliable sources that identify smoking as a cause I don't believe that either are tied to the rabid anti smoking lobby.

Your examples are way out there and meant to sway the observer


You are also making a correlation/causation error in assuming that because events correlate to the scenario that they must bear a causative relationship (your "pedestrian" line for example... this is equivalent to declaring the raped women the cause of her rape because she wouldn't have been raped if she hadn't been in the park where she was raped. The same applies to your "pole" line)...



In my opinion, much of this orginates from those who want to frame the debate as some kind of grand moral issue (like the abolitionists of old or the "keep the gays in the closet" types of today) rather than a matter of choice...


I don't think we are totally on different pages, I don't think there is any way to positively assign a single cause of death to any illness or disease but I do think if you remove any of the risk factors and you decrease the chances of developing the disease and decrease the chances that the disease will be fatal, add a risk factor and you increase the chances of developing a disease or dying from it


rather than a matter of choice... or... out of a personal dispute with tobacco companies (as in actually being more interested in "taking down 'Big Tobacco'" than the health of strangers)...


I have taken definite steps, spent my money and my time in an effort to help people who want to quit, I do not search them out they come looking for help to quit smoking and I supply them with that help,

I know that big tobacco is not even close to being put out of business but I will just keep chipping away one ban, one law, one smoker at a time.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 257
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/12/2011 3:52:02 PM

I did not say that the "anti's" used "Crohn’s disease to further their crusade" although I did say that the "anti's" would use my death "to further their crusade"


Such pointless semantics. Okay then...you said that anti smoking lobby groups would use the peritonitis that caused your death in their crusade against smoking. Same thing as with Crohn's. I've not seen any anti smoking campaign infer peritonitis is caused by smoking. It would be meaningless if they did because the relationship isn't there. But if they were to suggest smoking makes diseases like Crohn's worse and then show you gory pictures of people drowning in their own bowel contents, that would be fair game because it's true. You'remuch less likely to need surgery to remove your colon if you're a non smoker with Crohn's.


Since I am a smoker, I am ALREADY included in the smoker stats and because my death is from a 'smoking-related' cause (for which the underlying condition which may have led to it can't be determined at, or subsequent to, time of death), my death will be included with the 'smoking related' deaths even though smoking didn't cause it


Howdaya figure? There is not enough evidence to infer a causal relationship between whatever Crohn's related issue caused your death and smoking. There is no statistic anywhere that will include anything other than diseases with proven smoking related causes in smoking related deaths. If that weren't true, every patient who dies from AIDS related complications and who also smoked would get chalked up to smoking. The list would be very long and the smoking related deaths would be way higher.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 258
smoking bans
Posted: 2/12/2011 4:06:37 PM

In my opinion, much of this orginates from those who want to frame the debate as some kind of grand moral issue (like the abolitionists of old...

Ooops... I meant prohibitionists...

*blush*
 bipolarintense
Joined: 1/28/2011
Msg: 259
smoking bans
Posted: 2/18/2011 1:44:25 AM
3-Nitrobenzanthrone
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 260
smoking bans
Posted: 2/18/2011 7:36:18 AM

3-Nitrobenzanthrone

Perhaps you could clarify the point...?

While this is supportive of banning internal combustion vehicles (at least certain types) from downtown core areas (where vehicle density tends to be highest, concentrating pollutant exposure in these areas), I'm not clear on how this applies to smoking bans...
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 261
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/20/2011 8:30:54 AM

Smoking Bans...hmm.
Although I'd agree with many here that smoking in a public area is extremely rude and certainly should be discouraged, being forced to tolerate ill mannered smokers is far less of an evil than jacking around with the individuals freedom.. Even when said freedom allows for unpleasant smoke and odor. A people living under an oppressive government smell far worse.
This is waaaaay to slippery of a slope people


So how would you recommend that smoking be discouraged in public places, lets say a person walks into a restuarant and sits down next to you and your familyand then lights up what would you do to discourage that person from smoking, maybe say please put out that cigarette? If not then what would you do?

The people vote for the smoking bans, the "people" vote for the smoking bans are you able to follow me? We the people the ones who elect our governement are the same people who vote to ban smoking in public places, a majority of the people vote for the smoking bans and bans are put into law. There is no slippery slope.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 262
smoking bans
Posted: 2/20/2011 9:19:13 AM

Smoking Bans...hmm.
Although I'd agree with many here that smoking in a public area is extremely rude and certainly should be discouraged, being forced to tolerate ill mannered smokers is far less of an evil than jacking around with the individuals freedom.. Even when said freedom allows for unpleasant smoke and odor. A people living under an oppressive government smell far worse.
This is waaaaay to slippery of a slope people

Is banning bared female breasts in public as slippery a slope...? I don't see the country slipping into oppression and tyranny over that (which does no harm to the health of others)...

What about laws against dumping toxic pollutants into municipal water services (like dumping your motor oil in the storm drain)...? Isn't that also restricting your right to do as you please and are you slipping into tyranny and oppression for it...?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 263
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/20/2011 9:41:04 AM
a majority of the people vote for the smoking bans and bans are put into law.


Would a law that prohibited left-handed people from appearing in any public place between 9 and 5 be valid, just because a majority of the people favored it? That's not enough--a state or local law also has to be reasonably designed to achieve some legitimate government purpose. And the purposes courts have recognized are public health, safety and welfare. They also used to recognize public morals, but now that's usually considered to be part of public welfare.

The obvious basis for laws against smoking in certain places is protecting public health--and that's why the question whether second-hand tobacco smoke is harmful is so important. Sometimes the basis for these laws is far from clear. Why prohibit a person from smoking in a park at 6 AM, for example, when he's the only one there, and the nearest housing is a quarter-mile away?


What about laws against dumping toxic pollutants into municipal water services


That's covered by federal law--the Clean Water Act. The basis for it is that the storm sewers eventually empty into "waters of the United States," which Congress has authority to protect as part of its regulation of interstate commerce. The coastal oceans are also "waters of the U.S."
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 264
smoking bans
Posted: 2/20/2011 12:08:50 PM

What about laws against dumping toxic pollutants into municipal water services


That's covered by federal law--the Clean Water Act. The basis for it is that the storm sewers eventually empty into "waters of the United States," which Congress has authority to protect as part of its regulation of interstate commerce. The coastal oceans are also "waters of the U.S."

WTF...?!?

Nobody asked WHAT STATUTE covers such laws... You would do well to be more thorough in parsing what you are reading (do you understand the meaning of "rhetorical question" ?) before regaling us with answers to non-existent questions...
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 265
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/20/2011 5:00:28 PM
You can be sure I'll take your advice about how to read, parsing, rhetorical questions, etc. for all it's worth. You are the one who compared laws against smoking in public to laws against dumping oil into storm drains. But your analogy doesn't stand up--the risk of violating individual liberty isn't at all the same.

Congress's authority to prohibit that kind of water pollution by federal law is clear--the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. But the Constitution does NOT provide any authority for laws against smoking in public. The only authority for them is the inherent authority states (and in turn their municipal governments) are assumed to have to set policy by making laws.

The Supreme Court has called this authority the "police power" of the states, and since the Civil War, it has been limited by the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process of law. In practice, that means that if a state or local law deprives someone of liberty, it has to further the public health, safety, or welfare. So, for instance, in the interest of public safety, a state law can deprive drivers of the liberty to move forward for a minute or two by making them wait at red lights.

Laws against smoking in public claim to be justified by the government's interest in public health. If secondhand tobacco smoke is in fact a threat to public health, no problem. But if it is not, these laws violate due process, because they deprive people of liberty for no good reason.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 266
smoking bans
Posted: 2/20/2011 5:39:17 PM

If secondhand tobacco smoke is in fact a threat to public health, no problem. But if it is not, these laws violate due process, because they deprive people of liberty for no good reason.

I didn't realize this was still in question in any significant way. What if we are 90% certain that secondhand smoke is a threat? Is that good enough to justify such a law?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 267
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/20/2011 8:38:43 PM
Is that good enough to justify such a law?


Good question. To respect the separation of powers, courts ordinarily defer to the legislature. What that usually means is that if the government can point to any reasonable basis for a law that's related to protecting public health, safety, or welfare, the law's good.

Since smokers aren't exactly a pet grievance group, I'd be surprised to see many of the anti-smoking laws struck down. I don't smoke, but I don't like state and local governments harassing people who do. There's been sort of a holy crusade against tobacco--and the crusaders seem to see smoking as a vice.


What if the majority of our nations voters passed those into federal law?


Not gonna happen, for two reasons. First, that would target a certain group and deny it the equal protection of the laws, for no valid reason. The 14th Amendment's equal protection guarantee only applies against the states. *But* the Supreme Court reads the 5th Amendment to incorporate that equal protection guarantee and apply it against the federal government too. Second, because of the 5th and 14th Am. due process guarantees, neither federal nor state governments can make what someone *does* a crime. Your thoughts can't be criminalized, and neither can your status--being a Jew, being obese, or being whatever.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 268
smoking bans
Posted: 2/20/2011 9:10:13 PM

But your analogy doesn't stand up--the risk of violating individual liberty isn't at all the same.

But it is... you have no more "right" to smoke in public places than you do to dump your motor oil wherever you please... There is no Constitutional right to this, implicit or by fair implication, there is no fundamental right associated with it, smokers do not fall within "suspect" or "quasi-suspect" classes and public smoking bans fall within the scope of "legitimate interest"...

In practice, that means that if a state or local law deprives someone of liberty, it has to further the public health, safety, or welfare.

Ummm... You might want to reconsider that... Rational Basis requires only "legitimate interests"... it does NOT define specifically what "legitimate interests" actually are and certainly is not defined specifically as "public health, safety, or welfare"...

Laws against smoking in public claim to be justified by the government's interest in public health. If secondhand tobacco smoke is in fact a threat to public health, no problem. But if it is not, these laws violate due process, because they deprive people of liberty for no good reason.

Umm... First, even if "public health" were the stated in the legislation, it would not have to actually be proven true, there is no requirement that the stated contention be provably true, merely rationally plausible (and it would be up to you to prove it wasn't true)... and second, even if it weren't that, there only has to be SOME rationally discernable interest, the stated one does not have to be it (and it would be up to you to prove it didn't serve another "legitimate interest")... and, third, the presumption of Constitutionality which follows such things (those which aren't subject to strict or intermediate scrutiny) assumes them to serve the "legitimate interests" of the state (again, leaving it to you to prove it didn't)...

Sorry, but the 14th isn't "your friend" when it comes to any law that doesn't involve a fundamental right, suspect class or quasi-suspect class... And it will be of no help in fighting public smoking bans for that reason...
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 269
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/20/2011 9:19:09 PM

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm all for the ban itself it is the [/rights] of said smokers and nonsmokers alike that Im concerned with.
How would you feel regarding a law that was voted passed that made it illegal to be obese in public? Or how about being Jewish in public? Surely our Jewish population and their voting pool would stand no chance against the majority and her voters.
What if the majority of our nations voters passed those into federal law?


Are you implying that being obese or being Jewish is a health hazard to others?

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html


The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report
Smoking is the single greatest avoidable cause of disease and death. In this report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, the Surgeon General has concluded that:

Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces despite substantial progress in tobacco control.
Supporting Evidence

Levels of a chemical called cotinine, a biomarker of secondhand smoke exposure, fell by 70 percent from 1988-91 to 2001-02. In national surveys, however, 43 percent of U.S. nonsmokers still have detectable levels of cotinine.
Almost 60 percent of U.S. children aged 3-11 years—or almost 22 million children—are exposed to secondhand smoke.
Approximately 30 percent of indoor workers in the United States are not covered by smoke-free workplace policies.

Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke.
Supporting Evidence

Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide.
Secondhand smoke has been designated as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has concluded that secondhand smoke is an occupational carcinogen.

Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their children.
Supporting Evidence

Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are inhaling many of the same cancer-causing substances and poisons as smokers. Because their bodies are developing, infants and young children are especially vulnerable to the poisons in secondhand smoke.
Both babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant and babies who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth are more likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) than babies who are not exposed to cigarette smoke.
Babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant or who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth have weaker lungs than unexposed babies, which increases the risk for many health problems.
Among infants and children, secondhand smoke cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and increases the risk of ear infections.
Secondhand smoke exposure can cause children who already have asthma to experience more frequent and severe attacks.

Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.
Supporting Evidence

Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.
Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and interferes with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of a heart attack.
Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 - 30 percent.
Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20 - 30 percent.

The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
Supporting Evidence

Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack.
Secondhand smoke contains many chemicals that can quickly irritate and damage the lining of the airways. Even brief exposure can result in upper airway changes in healthy persons and can lead to more frequent and more asthma attacks in children who already have asthma.

Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.
Supporting Evidence

Conventional air cleaning systems can remove large particles, but not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke.
Routine operation of a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system can distribute secondhand smoke throughout a building.
The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. body on ventilation issues, has concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure.
The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General was prepared by the Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Report was written by 22 national experts who were selected as primary authors. The Report chapters were reviewed by 40 peer reviewers, and the entire Report was reviewed by 30 independent scientists and by lead scientists within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services. Throughout the review process, the Report was revised to address reviewers’ comments.

Citation
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006.

For more information, please refer to the Resources page. Additional highlight sheets are also available at www.cdc.gov/tobacco.


Last revised: January 4, 2007
 Hozo
Joined: 8/1/2006
Msg: 270
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/21/2011 5:59:22 AM
Wrapping yourself in statistical armour without understanding its composition is somewhat telling of ones selfish intentions.

So, what is true 2nd hand smoke, and are you exposed to it???

Please become enlightened on the definition of 2ND HAND SMOKE.

Merely SMELLING cigarette smoke is not the same thing as 2nd hand smoke...thats only a few parts per million....not much different than the scent in the air of someones freshly shampooed hair or their cologne.

But anti smokers like the above poster dont know the difference. It fits their selfish agenda so to them its one in the same & therin lies the problem.

I am not a cigarette smoker, therefore I can walk into a building, or someones house, etc, & detect the smell of cigarette smoke the same way an anti smoker does. THAT DOESNT MEAN ITS 2ND HAND SMOKE. But to a crusader, it is. It is no different than walking into a donut shoppe and smeling donuts. Using this scenario, I must be dangerously coating my lungs with white flour and powdered sugar.

Its merely an odor. I find it baffling that anti smokers go haywire over it. A smoker's home ALWAYS smells like cigarette smoke, even after theyve been on holiday for a week, but upon entering that same home after being vacant for a week, a non smoker will gag & rant & do all the obvious demeaning displays & gestures. Its hilarious.



The lines have become conveniently blurred by anti-smokers concerning 2nd hand smoke. 2ND HAND SMOKE, & merely just SMELLING SMOKE are 2 completely different things.

Studies done that anti smokers cling to as gospel deal with true recognised 2nd hand smoke statistics.....which is a suspended particulate count of several hundred parts per million of cigarette smoke, over a certain duration of time. It is a long term exposure to a concentrated amount.

True 2nd hand smoke can be seen as a smokey haze in a poorly ventilated room. One needs to be exposed months/years to this several hours a day. That is where the 2nd hand smoke stats come from. Nobody here is exposed to this anymore. If they are, they are the only ones who have a legitmate complaint. Everyone else is a bandwagon jumper. Every other anti smoker is conveniently hijacking it.

This is what I see as one of the problems created by a brainwashing agenda...a non smoker SEES or SMELLS cigarette smoke & equates it with 2ND HAND SMOKE. True 2nd hand smoke is an entity, not simply a scent or unfavourable visual on ones part.

You are dealing with a SCENT. You are magically turning it into 2ND HAND SMOKE.

Sorry, but you are not Jesus performing the miracle at Cana. If you are alarmed at being exposed to 3 parts per million of cigarette smoke, why are you not alarmed at being exposed to 3 parts per million of the hundreds other cancer-causing compound in the air you breathe daily?

This is a perfect example that its less a concern for ones health as it is a knee jerk Pavlov's dog response. When one merely SEES someone else smoking and gets a whiff of smoke SCENT anymore, that triggers a response - not the smoke itself. As you grimace & wave your hand in front of your face in the mere presence of a smoker its obvious to all that there's no thick cloud of smoke present. Its merely a conscious public display in order to show your support for your stance.



 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 271
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/21/2011 7:46:14 AM

it does NOT define specifically what "legitimate interests" actually are and certainly is not defined specifically as "public health, safety, or welfare"...


The states gave certain specified powers to the United States in the Constitution. They also prohibited themselves from doing certain specified things. The 14th Amendment and some other parts of the Constitution--e.g. the Commerce Clause--further limit the states' power.

What the states retain is their inherent police power. They make laws which delegate some of this power to counties, cities, and other municipal governments. These local governments can then adopt ordinances to regulate various activities.

Particularly as applied to these local laws--but also with state laws generally-- the Court for a long time has interpreted the police power as extending to matters of public health, safety, welfare, (and morals.) That means the interests of state and local governments are legitimate only when they concern those things. That's why laws that restrict architectural styles for aesthetic reasons, for example, are questionable.


Sorry, but the 14th isn't "your friend" when it comes to any law that doesn't involve a fundamental right, suspect class or quasi-suspect class... And it will be of no help in fighting public smoking bans for that reason


That's pretty much what I said in #382. Obviously, smokers are not a suspect classification, nor is smoking a fundamental right. The issue is whether a local legislature could reasonably conclude that secondhand tobacco smoke endangers public health. You stated the rules for rational basis review right, but it's not that simple in practice. The Court has a way of relaxing or stiffening that review, depending on the issue, without admitting it.
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 272
view profile
History
smoking bans
Posted: 2/21/2011 8:55:28 AM

But anti smokers like the above poster dont know the difference. It fits their selfish agenda so to them its one in the same & therin lies the problem.


I don't need stats to know what second hand smoke does and I am really selfish when it comes to the health of my family, my daughter can not be in a room with a smoker, I get to watch her trying to get her breath and reach for her inhaler, I was once a selfish smoker who believed like you do that my smoking only injured me so I smoked any where and any time I wanted to, now I see the results of my selfish behavior.

You can continue to your support for the "poor" tobacco companies who are being abused by the anti smoking lobby, the "po0r" tobacco companies who lied and denied what the health risks of smoking and second hand are/were for years.

Me, I will continue my selfish crusade as long as I possibly can.


Sorry, but you are not Jesus performing the miracle at Cana. If you are alarmed at being exposed to 3 parts per million of cigarette smoke, why are you not alarmed at being exposed to 3 parts per million of the hundreds other cancer-causing compound in the air you breathe daily?


It's your conclusion based on what are you able to read my mind and know what I am or am not concerned about? You worked in an environment where you were exposed to a health risk has that environment been cleaned up? what are you doing other then attacking the rabid anti smoking lobby that is going to help prevent others from the same exposure you were exposed to?


This is a perfect example that its less a concern for ones health as it is a knee jerk Pavlov's dog response. When one merely SEES someone else smoking and gets a whiff of smoke SCENT anymore, that triggers a response - not the smoke itself. As you grimace & wave your hand in front of your face in the mere presence of a smoker its obvious to all that there's no thick cloud of smoke present. Its merely a conscious public display in order to show your support for your stance.


You must be able to read the minds of so many other people, I am envious of you being able to know what others think and the way they react
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 273
smoking bans
Posted: 2/21/2011 9:12:24 AM
Merely SMELLING cigarette smoke is not the same thing as 2nd hand smoke...thats only a few parts per million....not much different than the scent in the air of someones freshly shampooed hair or their cologne.

But anti smokers like the above poster dont know the difference. It fits their selfish agenda so to them its one in the same & therin lies the problem.

To be fair, unless I missed it, I don't think the poster referred to has taken the stance that "merely smelling" the residual scent is "2nd hand smoke"...

And assuming he is reading the sources he posts (a reasonable assumption) he couldn't help but see this part, which he quoted...

Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke.

And it would also be reasonable to assume he understands that this:

Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.

Is rather over-stated (as in it is deliberately vague)... In fact, ASHRAE DID note in its paper that isolating smokers and non-smokers DOES protect non-smokers...

2. Smoking Only in Isolated Rooms: Allowing smoking only in separate and isolated rooms, typically dedicated to smoking, can control ETS exposure in non-smoking spaces in the same building. Effective isolation is achievable through airflow and pressure control including location of supply outlets and return and exhaust air inlets to preserve desirable airflow directions at doorways, as well as the use of separate ventilation systems serving the smoking spaces. When using this approach, the design and operation need to address entrainment of exhaust air containing ETS into the non-smoking area’s system through the air intake, windows, and other airflow paths. In addition, the airtightness of the physical barriers between the smoking and nonsmoking areas, as well as of the connecting doorways, requires special attention. Some smoking lounges in airports or office buildings exemplify use of this control approach.

ASHRAE Position Document on Environmental Tobacco Smoke

www.ashrae.org/File%20Library/docLib/Public/20090120_pos_ets.pdf

The deliberateness of this vagueness can be found in these quotes...

Conventional air cleaning systems can remove large particles, but not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke.
Routine operation of a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system can distribute secondhand smoke throughout a building.

Notice the highlighted words... In fact, as noted above, ASHRAE research found that it can be fully controlled, just that it requires an isolated system rather than the ROUTINELY used building ventilation systems(as in its all connected throughout the building) and an isolated space.

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. body on ventilation issues, has concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure.

I'm sure he is able to deduce from this that the info he posted is ONLY referencing smoking in a space that is NOT physically isolated or uses a ventilation system common with the rest of the spaces...

I'm sure he is able to see that this kind of vagueness is actually harmful to his cause by leading people to believe they are being lied to about the issue and that fully accurate and truthful info is certainly better...

I'm sure that he is able to see that informing people that second-hand smoke in public-access buildings CAN be controlled but only at extreme cost beyond the reach of most businesses and generally not realizable in existing structures actually SUPPORTS public smoking bans...
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > smoking bans