You can't HANDLE the truth! About passive smoke myth.

In May 2003 Enstrom and Kabat “shook the floors” of the
international antismoking establishment by publishing one of the
largest studies ever conduced on passive smoke: Environmental
tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study
of Californians, 1960-98. The study was a longitudinal one,
examining over 118,000 people from 1960 to 1998.

"The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke
and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small
effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco
smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be
considerably weaker than generally believed," says the abstract.

In spite of its enormous size and duration, the study was not
statistically significant. Enstrom and Kabat proved conclusively the
only thing that seems can be proven about passive smoke: its
“dangers” cannot be demonstrated.

Started under the auspices of the American Cancer Society in 1959
with a one million dollar start-up fund, the huge study examined and
followed 118,000 people, 35,561 of them non-smokers. The data was
collected for about 40 years. The study continued under the auspices
of the State of California, which granted some funds from the
Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program (Proposition 99) – a tax
system that uses the super-tax on cigarettes to finance antismoking
programs and propaganda.

In 1999 it became clear that the data was
not showing the “expected” results. In spite of tremendous pressures
to suppress the study, the two scientists refused to do so, and the
funds from Proposition 99 suddenly dried up. At this point, Enstrom
and Kabat had no choice but to turn to the Center for Indoor Air
Research – a group supported by the tobacco industry – to obtain the
$75,000 necessary to complete the study. After that, the financing of
the tobacco industry was used as a reason by scientific journals not to
publish the results.

Fortunately, the British Medical Journal
eventually accepted the study for publication. However, Richard
Smith, the editor of BMJ, instantly went “From hero to pariah in
one easy jump”, as he himself wrote on May 17, 2003
(http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057#32390):
“Not long ago I was something of a hero of the antitobacco
movement-- because I resigned my professorship at Nottingham
University when it accepted money from British American Tobacco. I
felt somewhat embarrassed by the whole episode. I was no hero. But
now I'm a pariah for publishing a piece of research funded by the
tobacco industry”.
(Full Enstrom-Kabat study here: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057)

THE LUFTHANSA FLIGHT ATTENDANT STUDY
A sizeable longitudinal study that went unreported by mass-media
was published by the American Journal of Epidemiology on May 1,
2002: Mortality from Cancer and Other Causes among Airline Cabin
Attendants in Germany, 1960–1997 (study available at:
http://www.forces.org/evidence/abcets/cabin.pdf). Completed in
1997, the study followed 16,014 women and 4,537 men, all
Lufthansa flight attendants, for 37 years, monitoring for lung cancer
and cardiovascular disease.

The peculiarity of this study is that it
concerns the confined air cabin environment where fight attendants
were exposed throughout their professional lives to passive smoking.
(It is worth pointing out that, since smoking has been banned in
airplanes, the air quality has significantly decreased because of the
diminished air exchange.)

The study concluded: “We found a rather remarkably low SMR
for lung cancer among female cabin
attendants and no increase for male cabin attendants, indicating that
smoking and exposure to passive smoking may not play an important
role in mortality in this group. Smoking during airplane flights was
permitted in Germany until the mid-1990s, and smoking is still not
banned on all charter flights. The risk of cardiovascular disease
mortality for male and female air crew was surprisingly low
(reaching statistical significance among women).”
This study is not an isolated case. Other studies on airline cabin
environment and passive smoke show similar results.

THE 1989 US DOT STUDY
Although not an epidemiological study, this study, Airliner Cabin
Environment: Contaminant Measurements, Health Risks, and
Mitigation Options (US Department of Transport, P-15-89-5,
available at http://www.forces.org/evidence/abcets/dot-p-15-89-
5.pdf), gives us perhaps the best intuitive dimension of the dilution of
passive smoke in the environment.

This direct-measurement study
states that a passenger sitting in the row bordering with the smoking
section would have to fly non-stop for 48,440 hours (5 ½ years) to
inhale the equivalent of one cigarette. The study also compares
passive smoke with the exposure to cosmic rays (a bombardment we
are all exposed to, even in caves), and states that cosmic rays
constitute a risk of cancer from 150 to 641 times higher than passive
smoking. The political conclusion of the study, however, was that
smoking should be banned from all flights!
http://www.forces.org/static_page/constitution.php

I've always told people this crap about passive smoking was a myth. But smoking is seriously dangerous for your health and it forced some people to quit, so it is not all bad. It is just another lie, but made in the interest of good health instead of for profit. In the scheme of things, it is a rather benign lie.

If you want to smoke in your own home please enjoy.

When I go out I don't want anyone's cigarette smoke going near me.

I wouldn't let people carry a vat of turpentine to a restaurant near my table so why should I allow someone to smoke near me?

The rate of poisoning appears higher with turpentine but I won't deal with either thank you.

Smoke your cigarette and enjoy where I don't breathe.

I'll smoke wherever I can and have the inclination. You're not going to die from occasionally entering restaurants.

down our throats, or taxing tobacco to no end. :grr:

spent time cleaning up roadways of litter? The disgusting germ-saturated cigarette butts alone would fill many trash bags. Butts littered around doorways--people too fucking lazy and inconsiderate even to use ashtrays provided--are an eyesore and a pollutant, and they stink.

and tax the folks that have them? :sarcasm:

of the species. They are a "necessary nuisance." With the effects of overpopulation, however, taxing the birth of more than one child is not a bad idea ...

Cigarettes are more than a "nuisance," they cost taxpayers extra for cleanup (talk to a ground crew worker sometime) and health care. They have caused fires in apartment buildings where others besides the careless smoker died, putting a burden on fire departments and emergency services for smokers and their victims who have to be rushed to the hospital in amnbulances.

I remember when people could smoke anywhere, anytime. The world is a nicer place now that it is not allowed in the workplace, in public lobbies, stores, etc. Whether or not 2ndhand smoke causes cancer, it does stink in other people's hair and on their clothes. It leaves a sticky yellow film of nicotine on everything. I recently dug out some curtains I had stored for more than 15 years. They were yellowed from when I used to smoke, same with some old books I have. The curtains did wash out, luckily.

because it's all about YOU, right?

I don't share your opinion that the world is a 'nicer' place now. It's far less real than I remember it growing up. Sterile, you see, is not what I consider 'nice', nor natural.

As for littering, well, I'm opposed to that in ANY form, cigarettes or otherwise.

Just because you like it better doesn't make it right. You've denied other people the right to live their lives as THEY choose to do what makes THEM happy. I hope you're proud of yourself.

I wrote the law, I worked day & night to get it passed, I patted myself on the back for it, etc.

DUH--one day I woke up & it was not legal to smoke in certain places. I did not "deny" anybody anything. so get over yourself. I do feel glad that a thoughtless person such as yrself who has no consideration for anybody because yr whiney-baby "right" to pollute everybody else's air has been curtailed. too bad, so sad. and, yes, it is nice to breathe clean air in a waiting room, dr's office, post office, restaurant, etc. etc. instead of smoke full of toxins that has passed through your rotting, diseased, disgusting lungs.

I am assuming you also feel it is okay to spit on the floor in a store?

thanks for proving my point.

:nopity:

waah, forced to consider the health and well-being of others, tsk tsk tsk--somehow that overwhelming injustice makes it "all about me." whatever.

Cigarette smoke is disgusting and the vast majority of Americans don't like to breathe it in and have their clothes and hair reek for hours because of other people's smoke. I remember in the 70s my mother went to an indoor concert. She said the air was thick with smoke. I remember she coughed for weeks and weeks after that concert.

It's not about YOU, either.

and just because you find something disgusting doesn't mean that it's disgusting to everyone.

and unpleasant and affecting them adversely when they go out, then it's better to accommodate the side of the large majority rather than the smaller group of people who affect everyone else.

Smoke ruins meals. It's hard to taste good food that you've paid good money for when all you can taste is smoke. I start coughing almost immediately when I walk through a cloud of cigarette smoke, and that's not a freak reaction -- that's a very common reaction amongst many people I know, including my kids.

it makes it less human. You have only succeeded in removing us one more step from our humanity. Congratulations.

stinky habit.

Blowing smoke in peoples' faces against their will is "less human" -- not to mention rude and unhealthy.

smoking is not a right. smoke all you want, just keep it outside. It's smoke, not air.

However we do not allow drunk driving and we penalize drunk drivers.

but who has the greater right? The person who wants to smoke, or the person who doesn't want to breathe somebody else's smoke and to leave an establishment or workplace with their clothes smelling like smoke even when they sit in the "no smoking section"?

Yes, the children of Republicans often grow up and cause death, hardship and inconvenience to the poor, the middle class, and innocent people of other countries.

Taxing children of Republicans could discourage such results in the future.

Just a modest proposal.

little black blobs of spit out gum on every sidewalk everywhere. Yeah, cigarettes are so much more dirty.:sarcasm:

...do you know how much of the cost of a pack of cigs is taxes?

If sodas with their obnoxious plastic bottles were taxed similarly, a soda would cost about $3.

And this smoker fully supports additional resctrictions and taxes on smoking and cigarettes.

I don't feel singled out, I don't feel targeted-- in fact, I don't think it's about me at all. I happen to think that the common good is more important than my niccotine fix.

But then again, I also happen to think that my addiction is not only bad for my health, but for the health of others-- so it seems the only valid, progressive choice I can make (other than quitting) is to keep it away from everyone else... regardless.

... with what you are saying. I was merely pointing out to the other fellow that cigarettes are already probably the most taxed consumable out there, by a huge margin.

I smoke a pack a week. A pack is running around $5 here in Texas. I can afford it.

It's not the fault of the butts that inconsiderate people leave them around. How are cigarettes any more germ infested and stinky than any other garbage people might leave behind?

you'll be understanding if I throw up on you? If you ruin my meal you'll pay for it?
Just asking after too many years of enduring boorish behavior from smokers, including my parents.

What I'm saying is that an establishment owner should have the right to choose his or her customers. If someone wants to cater to smokers, they should have that right. Conversely, if others want to cater to non-smokers, they should be able to do that to.

That way, you could enjoy your meal and I could enjoy mine and neither of us would be inconvenienced.

However, passing blanket legislation removing that choice -- while you may find it more comfortable -- has made others less comfortable.

Gee, but it's all about YOU, right? :eyes:

If you come to California, you have the choice to go outside the bar or restaurant before lighting up.

Guess what? Our laws aren't going ANYWHERE. Oh, I know-- we're so fuckin' fascist out here! So unreasonable!

Keep that in mind the next time you're waiting for our 55 Electoral College votes... we're a bunch of crazies who have NO idea what we're doing.

Like I said.. don't like it? Don't come here. Because here, you HAVE TO GO OUTSIDE THE BAR OR RESTAURANT BEFORE LIGHTING UP.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

and I mean that in the most snarky sort of way.

Too bad for you, if you decide to visit the most populous state in the Union, then.

simple, no?

Can't get much simpler than that.

There is absolutely no correlation between smoking outdoors and second hand smoke victims' health and yet state after state has jumped on the no smoking within fifty feet crap. Oh well, it does force some people to quit. I guess our legislatures have nothing else better to do but to legislate against nuisances.

Now if they would just pass a law that would make it illegal to be annoying.

What if it triggers their asthma? What if it makes them nauseous? What if it makes their clothing and hair stink (like it does ours)?

Ya know, these "smoking/anti-smoking" discussions wouldn't be nearly as incendiary if us smokers were more considerate in public and felt less entitled. There. I said it.

Really.

:shrug:

http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/health_issues/secondh...

Smoking & Health Issues

Secondhand Smoke

Secondhand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke or ETS, is a combination of the smoke coming from the lit end of a cigarette plus the smoke exhaled by a person smoking.

Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition, public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation.

PM USA believes that the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects of secondhand smoke in deciding whether to be in places where secondhand smoke is present, or if they are smokers, when and where to smoke around others. Particular care should be exercised where children are concerned, and adults should avoid smoking around them.

We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places. We also believe that where smoking is permitted, the government should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in non-smokers.


(bolding added by me)

Follow the money.

There is no way to rationalize away the fact the study was supported by big tobacco. Their results will ALWAYS be suspect.

for something that is inconsiderate at the very least and perhaps harmful to others at the most. So go ahead, smoke up a storm. But your clothes and hair stink, your teeth look brown, your upholstery has burn holes in it, that cough sounds disgusting, and sucking smoke into your lungs looks less than intelligent--meaning that not everybody in the world is going to find you attractive--not to mention that other people just MIGHT be bothered breathing the pollutants that you are exhaling. But your individual right to suck smoke into your body should not be interfered with no matter who else might be inconvenienced by stench and asthma.

By the way, I smoked at least a pack a day, sometimes two or more, for 30 years, until even I got disgusted with myself.

group here and help people learn to cope like you did. Though, I hate to say it, it sounds like you need a cigarette.

another rationalization...

--what bothers me is someone going to all the time & trouble to justify something that is known to bother, annoy, disgust, and perhaps sicken other people. It is just a matter of simple courtesy, of thinking of other people's feelings and sensibilities. I think I have a "right" to start running a chainsaw at 2:00 a.m. in my own driveway. Does that mean I should not take into consideration the fact that it will wake people up and that therefore it would be a thoughtless, incosiderate, and rude thing to do?

determined to quit when we buy this house... for money reasons and for our health. I've never been an in your face smoker. If the situation is not appropriate, I will go without. I was trying to say to you that supporting people through the process is much better than chastising people so horribly. When I have quit, I know that the smell is worst than I ever thought, but I also understand what an addiction is... and its a tough one to quit.

was the patch, which my father and brother bought for me--since they had bought it, I just could not turn around and diss them by failing. A booklet put out by the American Cancer Society or perhaps the 7th Day Adventists (which used to run excellent, nonreligious, 1-week quit-smoking programs, not sure if they still do) showing pictures of disgusting tar-blackened, cancerous lungs and hearts was also a good motivator. Going for longer and longer periods between cigarettes (30 minutes, 45 minutes, 60 minutes, 90 minutes, etc.), upping the time each day or each 2 days, was a big help. When I was 2 hrs between cigarettes, it seemed silly to continue, though I did not succeed in definitely cutting it off in those tries (but I could have, I know).

After I had gone a few days without smoking, finally, I also started observing people smoking and congratulating myself that I did not look like that anymore. I started washing curtains, bedspreads, etc., smelling them before and after--the smell started to become apparent after I'd gone a while without smoking. Munching on carrot and celery sticks helped, as did sucking on hard candy. Especially good was knitting or doing other things with my hands, sort of hypnotic things that I could sink into and sort of forget about smoking. Having extra money was a big plus--you should keep a goal in front of you for that extra money.

I had to take the attitude that I was no longer a smoker from Day One, also.

is that right? The zealots won't be happy until every corner is a no-smoking zone.

to someone when you were smoking 15 years ago?

Former smoker here too. I fight my cravings daily. I quit in Feb 2006 when I found out I was pregnant. The smell at that point made me puke. The only thing that made me puke while I was pregnant too. Now, my baby is almost a year old, I'm still not smoking, yet I now fight a craving daily. I say this shit is a serious drug to make someone still crave it after being off it for so long. My FIL quit over 20 years ago, and he still has the occasional craving.

saying that smokers are "killing you". which is garbage. monsanto is killing us. the lack of EPA protection is killing us. using fossil fuels is killing us. not smokers.

I'll wear a yellow tie.

If we are going to have dueling studies by the unsophisticated, lets at least have both sides represented.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1: Int J Cancer. 2004 Mar;109(1):125-31. Links
Secondhand smoke exposure in adulthood and risk of lung cancer among never smokers: a pooled analysis of two large studies.Brennan P, Buffler PA, Reynolds P, Wu AH, Wichmann HE, Agudo A, Pershagen G, Jöckel KH, Benhamou S, Greenberg RS, Merletti F, Winck C, Fontham ET, Kreuzer M, Darby SC, Forastiere F, Simonato L, Boffetta P.
International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France. brennan@iarc.fr

The interpretation of the evidence linking exposure to secondhand smoke with lung cancer is constrained by the imprecision of risk estimates. The objective of the study was to obtain precise and valid estimates of the risk of lung cancer in never smokers following exposure to secondhand smoke, including adjustment for potential confounders and exposure misclassification. Pooled analysis of data from 2 previously reported large case-control studies was used. Subjects included 1263 never smoking lung cancer patients and 2740 population and hospital controls recruited during 1985-1994 from 5 metropolitan areas in the United States, 11 areas in Germany, Italy, Sweden, United Kingdom, France, Spain and Portugal. Odds ratios (ORs) of lung cancer were calculated for ever exposure and duration of exposure to secondhand smoke from spouse, workplace and social sources. The OR for ever exposure to spousal smoking was 1.18 (95% CI = 1.01-1.37) and for long-term exposure was 1.23 (95% CI = 1.01-1.51). After exclusion of proxy interviews, the OR for ever exposure from the workplace was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.99-1.36) and for long-term exposure was 1.27 (95% CI = 1.03-1.57). Similar results were obtained for exposure from social settings and for exposure from combined sources. A dose-response relationship was present with increasing duration of exposure to secondhand smoke for all 3 sources, with an OR of 1.32 (95% CI = 1.10-1.79) for the long-term exposure from all sources. There was no evidence of confounding by employment in high-risk occupations, education or low vegetable intake. Sensitivity analysis for the effects of misclassification (both positive and negative) indicated that the observed risks are likely to underestimate the true risk. Clear dose-response relationships consistent with a causal association were observed between exposure to secondhand smoke from spousal, workplace and social sources and the development of lung cancer among never smokers. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

PMID: 14735478
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

BMJ (British Medical Journal) 2004;329:200-205 (24 July), doi:10.1136/bmj.38146.427188.55 (published 30 June 2004)

Paper
Passive smoking and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke: prospective study with cotinine measurement
Peter H Whincup, professor of cardiovascular epidemiology1, Julie A Gilg, research statistician1, Jonathan R Emberson, BHF junior research fellow2, Martin J Jarvis, professor of health psychology3, Colin Feyerabend, principal biochemist4, Andrew Bryant, senior analyst4, Mary Walker, research administrator2, Derek G Cook, professor of epidemiology1

1 Department of Community Health Sciences, St George's Hospital Medical School, London SW17 0RE, 2 Department of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Royal Free Campus, Royal Free and University College Medical School, London NW3 2PF, 3 Cancer Research UK Health Behaviour Research Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Royal Free and University College Medical School, London WC1E 6BT, 4 Medical Toxicology Unit, New Cross Hospital, London SE14 5ER

Correspondence to: P H Whincup p.whincup@sghms.ac.uk


Abstract
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References

Objective To examine the associations between a biomarker of overall passive exposure to tobacco smoke (serum cotinine concentration) and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke.
Design Prospective population based study in general practice (the British regional heart study).

Participants 4729 men in 18 towns who provided baseline blood samples (for cotinine assay) and a detailed smoking history in 1978-80.

Main outcome measure Major coronary heart disease and stroke events (fatal and non-fatal) during 20 years of follow up.

Results 2105 men who said they did not smoke and who had cotinine concentrations < 14.1 ng/ml were divided into four equal sized groups on the basis of cotinine concentrations. Relative hazards (95% confidence intervals) for coronary heart disease in the second (0.8-1.4 ng/ml), third (1.5-2.7 ng/ml), and fourth (2.8-14.0 ng/ml) quarters of cotinine concentration compared with the first ( 0.7 ng/ml) were 1.45 (1.01 to 2.08), 1.49 (1.03 to 2.14), and 1.57 (1.08 to 2.28), respectively, after adjustment for established risk factors for coronary heart disease. Hazard ratios (for cotinine 0.8-14.0 0.7 ng/ml) were particularly increased during the first (3.73, 1.32 to 10.58) and second five year follow up periods (1.95, 1.09 to 3.48) compared with later periods. There was no consistent association between cotinine concentration and risk of stroke.

Conclusion Studies based on reports of smoking in a partner alone seem to underestimate the risks of exposure to passive smoking. Further prospective studies relating biomarkers of passive smoking to risk of coronary heart disease are needed.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 18, No. 4, 202-205 (1999)
DOI: 10.1191/096032799678839914
© 1999 SAGE Publications

Passive smoking, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and childhood infections
Erik Dybing
Department of Environmental Medicine, National Institute of Public Health, PO Box 4404 Torshov, N-0403, Oslo, Norway

Tore Sanner

Department of Environmental and Occupational Cancer, Institute of Cancer Research, Oslo, Norway


1 A number of cohort and case-control studies have shown clear, dose-related associations between maternal smoking and infant death. The strongest relationships were found when the mother smoked during pregnancy as well as postnatally. Maternal smoking during pregnancy increases the risk for SIDS in most studies, whereas it appears that maternal smoking only postnatally also leads to an increase in risk. In addition, smoking only by the father appears to increase the risk for SIDS, but this is not seen in all studies.

2 Exposure of children to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) increases the risk of having night cough and respiratory infections (bronchitis, bronchiolitis, pneumonia), especially during the first 2 years of life. An increased risk is also seen in studies not distinguishing between upper and lower respiratory diagnoses. Longterm breastfeeding may have a protective effect on ETS-increased risk of lower respiratory tract illness. One study of older children reports that ETS combined with allergy increased the risk of acute respiratory tract infections above that due to ETS alone.

3 The number of new episodes and duration of otitis media with effusion in young children is positively correlated with ETS exposure. Especially infants with lower birth weights had a high risk of recurrent otitis media during the first year of life when the mother was a heavy smoker.

4 Passive smoking has been reported as a risk factor in meningococcal disease and tuberculosis in young children.


Key Words: passive smoking • SIDS • childhood infections • lower respiratory illness • middle ear infections


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nuisances should be outlawed.

But then, in a solipsistic world that's obviously enough, isn't it?

with two blindfolds on.

i.e. the results were not conclusive that second ahnd smoking caused anything. And they want to repeat the studies till they can find evidence, becuase so far, not.
only in pregnant women for fetuses, and that we all agree with.

need to ask who funded these studies. Insurance companies? I think all of these studies should have that info up front. It would take a lot of the mystery out of all of them.

against the obvious brainwashing effort to vilify second hand smoke as the great environmental hazard of our times.

The lung that keeps appearing in these threads could have belonged to a typical commuter.

Or drinking carrot juice?

they sink to the bottom of the pond after they die, it is proof that they have had no commerce with the devil weed, their bodies are pure, and their souls are on the way to Heaven (smoke free garden in the sky). If their bodies float after they die, it is proof that their lungs are leathern like Lucifer's, and they require to be burned at the stake to be purified. Caution should be taken to wear gas masks while you burn them, so as not to pollute your precious bodily fluids with the stench of their burning flesh. It gets on your clothes and stuff." --Maleus Malefismokum

What's with the distraction? Sheesh.

The tobacco industry is the #1 donor to Congress--that's right, folks: #1!

I'm having trouble getting the link...when I find and access it, I'll post it (sorry).

I don't trust any study USA-funded study regarding the effects of secondhand smoke. Notice that studies cited upthread as a rebuttle to the one mentioned by the OP were from Europe.

Note: The tobacco industry is NOT looking out for your best interests!

Case closed.

Second hand smoke can kill me.

Ban smoking.

Have a nice day.

A "small risk" for flight attendants taking years worth of smoking flights does not translate to "second hand smoke can kill me" for you, a person who occasionally passes by a smoker on the sidewalk. Nor does it even come close to justifying making tobacco illegal for consenting adults (and that doesn't even touch upon any arguments about whether "banning" something actually solves the problem).

Geez. Talk about hysteria.

about the effects of "passive" smoke. What a charming use of language, btw. "Passive" smoke sounds so much less harmful doesn't it?

that's the crux of the issue - sticking with the scientific process and identifying all causes - not just one.

I've always had trouble breathing around cigarette smoke. My dad's asthma gets so bad he has to leave immediately. Last weekend, I was at a game with my hubby, and on our way to the commuter bus, a guy started smoking, and my asthma hit so hard I had to lean against Hubby and have him hold me up while I tried to calm it down (stupidly had forgotten my inhaler in my other purse). The air conditioning in the bus plus the rule that he couldn't smoke in there helped me get my breath again.

There are all sorts of poisons in the smoke. Do we really need children and people with medical problems and everyone else nearby breathing those in?

I dont want to smell like shit, so they dont get my money.

They don't care about my desires, and i dont care about their business success.

Works for me.

Some establishments will cater to smokers and some will cater to non-smokers, where you choose to patronize is your choice... I personally think businesses to be able to choose who they cater to. So smokers shouldn't be able to damand the right to smoke, and non-smokers shouldn't be able to demand the place to be smoke free.

I don't smoke, but smoke doesn't bother me because I'm always around it anyways. However, if I wasn't used to it then I would be far more likely to spend my money at a place that isn't full of smoke.

and NO establishment 'chose' to cater to non-smokers. Smoking was allowed, so EVERYWHERE was smoking.

How's this for individual choice: If you honestly believe that asking smokers to go outside of enclosed, public places like bars and restaurants is an unacceptable infringement upon "freedom", you can choose to stay out of California, because OUR EXTREMELY POPULAR SMOKING REGULATIONS ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE. EVER.


Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!

However, the way things are now, it's far more likely that some businesses would cater to non-smokers... I know if I was a business owner and there were many people wanting non-smoking establishments, then I would try to fill that niche.

As for CA, well, that was obviously the majorities choice so more power to ya.

do not smell the same, believe me.

that smoking should be respected and trumpted as some kind of glorious "right" unless someone can find a particular dead body unequivocably killed by someone else's cigarette.

the TRUTH than public smokers can't handle is that it doesn't take outright deaths to make something obnoxious as hell, and common decency and politeness should convince smokers not to light up in public without the consent of everyone around them.

have some consideration for those who cough, wheeze, gasp, get migraines, teary eyes, and so on and either go without in public or choose a smokeless product such as nicotine gum, chew, or the patch.

and the only time I'm kicking a smoking thread.


For the average person that walks by a cigarette occasionally there are no ill effects. It is the smokey bars that you need to avoid if you're worried.

I'm fairly careful about where I smoke. If you happen to breath a small amount I'm not going to change my habits.

Thats about it.

my beef is against, for instance, people who smoke on the crowded sidewalks of manhattan during commuting hours. even if i only get one whiff from any single cigarette, there are enough public smokers that i go from getting one whiff of one cigarette to one whiff of the next cigarette and by the end of my 25 minute walk to the office i've gotten an awful lot of whiffs....

in a big crowd, one smoker inconveniences a lot of passers-by.

Oh BTW, I meant to reply to the thread and wasn't trying to direct at you, Oops.


:hi:

http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp

Smoking & Health Issues

Secondhand Smoke

Secondhand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke or ETS, is a combination of the smoke coming from the lit end of a cigarette plus the smoke exhaled by a person smoking.

Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition, public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation.

PM USA believes that the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects of secondhand smoke in deciding whether to be in places where secondhand smoke is present, or if they are smokers, when and where to smoke around others. Particular care should be exercised where children are concerned, and adults should avoid smoking around them.

We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places. We also believe that where smoking is permitted, the government should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in non-smokers.


(bolding added by me)
---------------------------

Another interesting one:


BMJ: "Tobacco company set up network of sympathetic scientists":


http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/316/7144/1553/d

The US tobacco giant Philip Morris set up a network of scientists throughout Europe who were paid to cast doubt on the risks of passive smoking and highlight other possible causes of respiratory problems, according to confidential documents from the company's law firm released on the internet.

<snip>

The memo from the London office of the US law firm Covington and Burling claims that Philip Morris consultants set up a learned society, Indoor Air International--complete with scientific journal.

The document is one of 39 000 which the industry was forced to disclose in a lawsuit brought by the state of Minnesota and two healthcare companies which was recently settled. The fact that the project was coordinated by lawyers meant the company could claim legal privilege for any documentation and prevent disclosure in later litigation. But the Minnesota court held that there was prima facie evidence of fraud, which overrides the privilege.

<snip>

Clive Bates, director of the antismoking pressure group ASH (Action on Smoking and Health), said: "Philip Morris's attempt to infiltrate science is a scandal. The documents clearly show the industry inventing and orchestrating controversies by buying up scientists and creating influential outlets for tainted science."

more at link above

I wonder if the pro-public smoking crowd also thinks that humans have no impact on climate change because Shell oil's "scientists" say so?

Here is an explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Cognitive dissonance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term describing the uncomfortable tension that may result from having two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one's beliefs, or from experiencing apparently conflicting phenomena.

In simple terms, it can be the filtering of information that conflicts with what you already believe, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce your beliefs. In detailed terms, it is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, where "cognition" is defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance states that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions. Experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive. Some of these have examined how beliefs often change to match behavior when beliefs and behavior are in conflict.

Social psychologist Leon Festinger first proposed the theory in 1957 after the publication of his book When Prophecy Fails, observing the counterintuitive belief persistence of members of a UFO doomsday cult and their increased proselytization after the leader's prophecy failed. The failed message of earth's destruction, purportedly sent by aliens to a woman in 1956, became a disconfirmed expectancy that increased dissonance between cognitions, thereby causing most members of the impromptu cult to lessen the dissonance by accepting a new prophecy: that the aliens had instead spared the planet for their sake.<1>

...more at link...

just curious. 'cuz y'know, it doesn't really add anything to the conversation, let alone the science.

or are you really serious?

Because public health officials didn't come to the conclusion that secondhand smoke

"...causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition, public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation"

by asking a Ouija board.






There is overwhelming evidence, based on scientific studies, showing that secondhand smoke causes disease. Some have already posted the information in this thread. The information is easy to find. Just go to Google Scholar, type in secondhand smoke and cancer (or secondhand smoke and disease), and click on "recent articles." Let me know how many of the thousands of studies, mostly from peer-reviewed scientific journals, show that there is no relationship between secondhand smoke and cancer or disease.

Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

nazi's over the head with, they'll keep on comin' with nonsense. People who want to let the government restrict freedom in America because they have no ability to adapt to life on earth. People with no sense of slippery slope- how no smoking in restaurants leads to no smoking in all public places leading to no smoking outdoors leading to no smoking on any property, public or private.

Then it leads to outlawing fatty foods and then carby foods and then meat...

Maybe I'm overreacting a bit but I think you get the point.

BTW, I'm a non-smoker who is highly allergic to cig smoke among other things. I can adapt because I know that the whole world does not revolve around my individual needs.

:applause:

a totally unreasonable infringement upon their freedom!

:eyes:

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

I don't mind going outside to smoke. And believe it or not, I can actually be in a smoke-free area and not light a cigarette! Hard to believe, I know, since all smokers make it a point to light cigarettes where they're not allowed to! But I digress...

The anti-smokers here have spent the better part of the weekend telling me that if I want to smoke I should stay inside my house, because no matter where they are in this huge country, my lighting a cigarette outside bothers them.

I try to accomodate non-smokers, honestly. But there is no simliar sense of accomodation from their side, and that seems, you know, a little... intolerant.

- as

Banning smoking outside is something else.

That's where I draw the line. The only exception I would make, there, is kids' playgrounds, schools, etc. We actually have that law in my town, but people STILL smoke right by the play structures when there's a giant open space around. That's a little obnoxious- believe me, there are smokers who have a real "fuck you" attitude about it. My lungs can deal, but don't blow smoke at a bunch of 3 year olds on a slide, please.

So, as for "no accomodation", maybe I'm the exception- that's where I draw the line. I think the laws we have in California about smoking in indoor, public places are legitimate. Banning smoking outside goes too far, barring the exception listed above. That's where I stand on it. I have no interest in keeping people from smoking outside.

I don't smoke around kids, period.

The thing that bugs me worst about these smoking threads is that all smokers are painted with a very broad brush.

I hate being de-humanized. Thanks for being a rational non-smoker.

- as

I'm glad I never picked it up, because I know I'd have a hell of a time quitting.

Peace.

That alone should count for something.

if a non smoker has developed lung cancer from second hand cigarette smoke? Would someone please enlighten me.

Why are you so intent on spreading propaganda?

recent and reliable studies like those presented by the American Lung Association:

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet

June 2007

Secondhand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. It is involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers, lingers in the air hours after cigarettes have been extinguished and can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.1

*
Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).2
*
Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide.3
*
Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.4
*
Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of ETS in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces.5
*
Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy, ranging from 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.6 Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers.7
*
Fifteen states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Washington and Vermont - as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico prohibit smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars. Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon and Utah have passed legislation prohibiting smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars, but the laws have not taken full effect yet.8
*
Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.9
*
Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 790,000 physician office visits per year.10 Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma.11
*
In the United States, 21 million, or 35 percent of, children live in homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis.12 Approximately 50-75 percent of children in the United States have detectable levels of cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine in the blood.13
*
New research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades.14
*
The current Surgeon General’s Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to second hand smoke. Short exposures to second hand 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 heart attack.15

For more information on secondhand smoke, please review the Tobacco Morbidity and Mortality Trend Report as well as our Lung Disease Data publication in the Data and Statistics section of our website at www.lungusa.org, or call the American Lung Association at 1-800-LUNG-USA (1-800-586-4872).

Sources:

1. California Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Executive Summary. June 2005.
2. Ibid.
3. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: 6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report. A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006; Available at: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html: Accessed on 7/7/06
4. California Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Executive Summary. June 2005.
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Report on Carcinogens, Tenth Edition 2002. National Toxicology Program.
6. Shopland, D. Smoke-Free Workplace Coverage. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2001; 43(8): 680-686.
7. Halpern, M.T.; Shikiar, R.; Rentz, A.M.; Khan, Z.M. Impact of Smoking Status on Workplace Absenteeism and Productivity. Tobacco Control 2001; 10: 233-238.
8. American Lung Association. State Legislated Actions on Tobacco Issues (SLATI). Available at: http://slati.lungusa.org/StateLegislateAction.asp Accessed on 6/18/07.
9. California Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Executive Summary. June 2005.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Schuster, MA, Franke T, Pham CB. Smoking Patterns of Household Members and Visitors in Homes with Children in United States. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine. Vol. 156, 2002: 1094-1100.
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. America’s Children and the Environment: Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses. Second Edition. February 2003
14. Diethelm PA, Rielle JC, McKee M. The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth? The Research Philip Morris Did Not Want You to See. Lancet. Vol. 364 No. 9446, 2004
15. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: 6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report. A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006; Available at: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html: Accessed on 7/7/06

*Racial and ethnic minority terminology reflects those terms used by the Centers For Disease Control.

View American Lung Association Nationwide Research Awardees for 2006-2007

Cognitive dissonance; it's NOT just for Freepers!

y'know the dept. with that fudged assessment of aggregated studies to get a fixed answer? hmm... i would like to get my hands on all of these studies. i have routinely been suspicious of gov't assessments, particularly when you really dig down into their very own studies. just a few drugs whose paranoia i've found that were nothing but, pardon the pun, blown smoke: MDMA, Cannabis, LSD... so pardon me if i do not immediately swallow 'the authorities' public assessment. you see, i actually do know how to do real research besides parroting and have learned to think for myself.

i shall be digging into all these sources over the next few months. i shall come to my conclusion and report back one day. until then i suspend judgment.

This whole issue is a huge detriment to the Progressive cause.

Social policy should be based on Truth and science.

Smoking obviously damages the health of the smoker. Good social policy would then seek to help people quit smoking. It should be OK to admit it.

The passive smoking crap is used to push through non-smoking ordinances based on flimsy evidence. It leads people to think that "science" is being manipulated to further someone's agenda. It casts doubt on science and all scientific based social policy.

Why don't we just admit the truth and quit with the bullshit? Personally, I would find it easier to stomach.

dealing with digging for the truth about cannabis, MDMA, communism, banana republics, lack of comperable rail system, etc. i have learned to rely on myself and my own capacity for research to come to my own conclusions. but you are absolutely right, the politicization of everything, and the use of propaganda, disinformation, etc. has made the process a touch more difficult. thankfully i have strong confidence in my skills of deduction, research, classification of validity, reading hidden intentions, capacity of comprehension of real scientific processesm and tuning out the bullshit cheerleaders. actually a lot of people are like this, but often they have no desire to spend their time in this way. some days i do not blame them, parties and generic escapism are fun.

i have seen.

discussion of the topic:

Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?

Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) (1, 3, 5).

Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults (4). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke (2). The Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent (4).

Some research suggests that secondhand smoke may increase the risk of breast cancer, nasal sinus cavity cancer, and nasopharyngeal cancer in adults, and leukemia, lymphoma, and brain tumors in children (4). Additional research is needed to learn whether a link exists between secondhand smoke exposure and these cancers.

I am a nonsmoker who had nasopharyngeal cancer without any risk factors other than growing up with two pack-a-day smokers, and my oncologists identified my exposure to second hand smoke as the likeliest cause of my cancer.

I heard somebody testify to that in front of Congress.

affects cancer risk?

I spent at least a couple of hours googling this data and came up completely empty. Very odd -- I am sure this has been studied.

I remember seeing a chart in middle school but have never trusted it. In was in NC, and I suspect the data may have come from a tobacco-funded organization.

http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/56/1/3

Smokers who are serious about reducing the health risks from their habit are better off quitting than just cutting back, two recent studies suggest. One paper, published in Tobacco Control (2005;14:315–320), finds that smoking as few as one to four cigarettes daily can significantly raise the risk of dying compared with a nonsmoker. The other report, from JAMA (2005;294:1505–1510), shows that although heavy smokers can reduce their lung cancer risk by reducing the number of cigarettes they smoke, their risk is still significantly higher than that of nonsmokers or former smokers.

The paper from Tobacco Control refutes the tobacco industry claim that there is no evidence that smoking only a few cigarettes per day is a significant health hazard. The study was conducted by Kjell Bjartveit, MD, PhD, MPH, Director Emeritus of Norway’s National Health Screening Service, and Aage Tverdal, PhD, Professor, Senior Researcher, Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Bjartveit is a noted tobacco researcher and recipient of the American Cancer Society (ACS)’s Luther L. Terry award, which recognizes excellence in tobacco control efforts. Their study included 43,000 women and men, aged 35 to 49 years, who were followed for more than 25 years. The authors found increasing health risks with increasing numbers of daily cigarettes. But even a few cigarettes per day significantly raised the risk of dying from all causes. For ischemic heart disease, the steepest risk increase was in both sexes between zero and one to four cigarettes per day. Above this level, the slope was less pronounced. Light smoking women and men had close to three times higher risk of dying from ischemic heart disease, compared with never smokers.

...more at link above

------------------

If you go to Google Scholar www.scholar.google.com and search for "light smoking" and cancer you get a number of articles and scientific studies on that subject. I usually click on "recent articles" to get the newest one first.