2nd Hand Smoke

[Dylab]

Does anyone know what the studies of the relation of 2nd hand smoke and cancer say? Penn & Teller's show "********" is doing a show on it this week and the preview seems pretty surprising.

[fidiot]

Sorry, I don't have any links to any studies, but I believe that it cannot be linked unless it's indoors.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Dylab
Does anyone know what the studies of the relation of 2nd hand smoke and cancer say? Penn & Teller's show "********" is doing a show on it this week and the preview seems pretty surprising.

I've always found it bizarre that Penn frowns upon liquor consumption, but then turns around and smokes.

Strange.

[edthedoc]

I don't have time to do it myself but try a search for "passive smoking" at www.bmj.com for a start.

As far as I can remember there have been studies done with conflicting results, none conclusive. This is a particularly difficult problem to study as smoking related illnesses take years to develop and there are many other causes and many other factors involved (family genetics, lifestyle, occupation etc.).

Having your clothes smell like **** and sore eyes and throat are more clear cut reasons to avoid passive smoking, eh?

[LW]

Originally posted by Valmorian
I've always found it bizarre that Penn frowns upon liquor consumption, but then turns around and smokes.

In How to play in traffic P&T write that they smoke only on stage, not outside it. Their explanation for this is that there are many good tricks with cigarettes that they want to perform.

[DrMatt]

"Safe" or not, smoking stinks :p

[Plutarck]

Dear Cecil:

Having recently debunked the Super Bowl Sunday violence story, perhaps you could check into this secondhand smoke business. I seem to remember that after the initial study came out blaming secondhand cigarette smoke for every kind of ill, this study was found to be seriously flawed. Is this another case like the "LSD causes chromosome damage" study? --Rick Remaley, Chicago

Cecil replies:

Sure, what the hell, why not insinuate myself into yet another hot-button topic? Then I'll be ready to take on gun control, abortion, and which are smarter, cats or dogs.

Let me begin by saying that I'm allergic to tobacco smoke, and laws against smoking in public places have personally benefited me. In principle I don't have a problem with banning public smoking: it's an annoyance to nonsmokers and a danger to vulnerable folk such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. All that having been said, the claim that "environmental tobacco smoke" (ETS) seriously threatens the health of the general public, and in particular that it causes lung cancer, is unproven at best.

...[snippit]...


The Straight Dope, for all your scientific needs! :D

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000602.html

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by LW


In How to play in traffic P&T write that they smoke only on stage, not outside it. Their explanation for this is that there are many good tricks with cigarettes that they want to perform.

Yeah, I've read that as well, although I'm confused about why Penn is smoking in "Penn and Teller get Killed" even though he performs no trick with the cigarette.

[Skeptoid]

Not so much tricks with cigarettes, as cigarettes as tools of misdirection, I suspect.

Originally posted by Valmorian


I've always found it bizarre that Penn frowns upon liquor consumption, but then turns around and smokes.

Strange.


Is is probably just for his image or persona.

[kittynh]

I knew my daughters pediatrician always asks parents if they smoke. She also asks if the family uses a wood stove. Then she writes it in the kids file. She claimed when I asked her that kids in smoking households have more upper resp. infections. But, I just took her word for it, and didn't ask for proof

[The Fool]

The health benifits of smoking tobacco are not widely understood. Throughout history man has used tobacco as an important aid to healthy living.

Quoted from "Medicine Through Time, A BBC site.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/medi...am/inamgs.shtml



"Chewing tobacco was believed to protect against the Plague and in 1774 a tobacco resuscitator kit was invented. This was used to blow tobacco smoke up the patient's anus, nose or mouth to revive 'persons apparently dead'. Tobacco enemas to loosen the bowels were popular into the early nineteenth century. they were used to treat anyone who caught the dreaded cholera disease."


From Jarvik, British Journal of Addiction, 1991

"the many positive aspects of this wonder drug. "When chronically taken," it says, "nicotine may result in: (1) positive reinforcement [it makes you feel good], (2) negative reinforcement [it may keep you from feeling bad], (3) reduction of body weight [by reducing appetite and increasing metabolic rate], (4) enhancement of performance, and protection against: (5) Parkinson's disease, (6) Tourette's disease [tics], (7) Alzheimer's disease, (8) ulcerative colitis and (9) sleep apnea. The reliability of these effects varies greatly but justifies the search for more therapeutic applications for this interesting compound."


So Throw off your skeptical thoughts and smoke your way to good health!

[Plutarck]

You know Fool, I have a bone to pick with you. I've been smoking all damn day and I STILL have Plague!

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by Plutarck
You know Fool, I have a bone to pick with you. I've been smoking all damn day and I STILL have Plague!

Did you read what he said and blow it up your arse?

[Plutarck]

Originally posted by DrMatt


Did you read what he said and blow it up your arse?

Well, I figured "If it worked to cure my cholera"...

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by Plutarck


Well, I figured "If it worked to cure my cholera"...

A counselor at summer camp tried to send me to the neighboring cabin to obtain a "left-handed smoke-bender." I asked if he was on drugs.

[voidx]

I'm interested in the actual detriment of second hand smoke as well. Up here in Canada health services has put out a huge campaign on TV, movie previews about the long-term life threatening affects of second hand smoke. It most likely doesn't do anything positive for you, but I wonder just how dangerous it actually is.

[HarryKeogh]

well, according to the Penn and teller show they just did on Second Hand smoke the study that all the anti-smoking groups use as evidence was severely flawed. the EPA (environmental protection agency here in the states) in their report "cherry-picked" information to skew the stats to show 3000 deaths a year due to second hand smoke. Some anti-smoking groups seem to arbitrarily pick a number, say 50,000 or 100,000 deaths a year to put in their literature w/o any science to back it up. More reliable studies say the increase is statistically insignificant, something like 2.5 extra lung cancer deaths per 1,000,000 people. Again, all this info is from the TV show i watched last night.

i hate smoking. detest it. i'm glad here in nyc they are banning smoking in clubs and restaurants. so second hand smoke probably wont give me cancer anyway but i hate coming home smelling like an ashtray. plus it's hard to enjoy food with someone smoking next to you. if i'm wrong for curbing someone's rights for my comfort so be it. i'm sure a lot of smokers would bitch and complain if i lit up a cigar or some incense next to them while theyre trying to eat a sandwich.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Valmorian
I've always found it bizarre that Penn frowns upon liquor consumption, but then turns around and smokes.

P&T only smoke onstage whenever it's part of a trick.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Valmorian
Yeah, I've read that as well, although I'm confused about why Penn is smoking in "Penn and Teller get Killed" even though he performs no trick with the cigarette.

Uh, because it's a movie?

[teddygrahams]

Does anyone here remember what it was like to fly when smoking was allowed ? Were there non-smoking flights for non-smokers ?

Ever been in a situation where you could not avoid breathing smoke ? I suppose I could have driven off without paying for that gas... it was my fault for not thinking the cashier could be sitting in there smoking it up...

No matter how wrong I think it is to misuse a study, I have absolutely no sympathy at all for anyone affected by non-smoking laws.

I would like to see one study that shows it is possible to avoid cigarette smoke without laws to prevent smoking.

[chapka]

I've actually read the study in question (it's available at

http://www.epa.gov/nceawww1/ets/etsindex.htm

if you want to do so too before you respond to this post). It seems pretty clear-cut to me. The most important message is, if you have children, don't smoke in your home.

This was a study of long-term exposure. Nobody is seriously suggesting that walking past a smoker on the street will do you any serious harm. But if you work in an office with smokers, or if you live with smokers, studies have shown that you inhale almost exactly the same pollutants smokers do, just in smaller quantities.

This is why the adult lung cancer section of the study was so controversial. Because there was already significant evidence of a connection, EPA thought a 90% confidence level was appropriate. In other words, since exactly the same substances are present in the lungs of active and passive smokers, even smaller correlations are likely to be significant.

What's not controversial, and what pro-smoking critics usually ignore, is the rest of the report. EPA reviewed data on children living with parents who smoked. The data, reviewed at a standard 95% confidence rating, was incredibly clear. If you smoke, your children will be more likely to get ear infections, throat infections, pneumonia, and bronchitis. They are more likely to develop chronic athsma. If they already have athsma, their attacks will be more severe and are more likely to be life-threatening. They will cough and wheeze more, and will have diminished lung function. They are more likely to spend time in the hospital than other children. Children of smoking mothers are more likely to die of SIDS, although it's unclear whether this is related to ETS or smoking during pregnancy.

This is a pretty clear signal to anyone who smokes: if you have kids, don't smoke in your home or in your car, and don't allow anyone else to. The numbers are less clear but still suggestive for spouses of people who smoke and for adults who are exposed to secondhand smoke in the workplace. The fact is, this is a difficult area to study, since it's impossible to measure actual exposure, and so scientists must rely on proxies such as how much a spouse or parent smokes, as estimated by a nonsmoker. We can't expect crystal clarity on long-term risks like cancers. But to say that the EPA metaanalysis proves nothing is just plain untrue.

To summarize: secondhand smoke in the home is bad for children, and long-term exposure in the home or workplace seems to be bad for everyone. I'd be glad to hear opposing points of view, but please read the study before you criticize it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by teddygrahams
Does anyone here remember what it was like to fly when smoking was allowed ? Were there non-smoking flights for non-smokers ?

Yes. When you were asked for window or aisle seat, you were also asked for smoking or non-smoking.

Ever been in a situation where you could not avoid breathing smoke ?

Only because of non-smoking policies in buildings, causing smokers to hang out by the door where I have to walk through them to get in and out. I had no problems avoiding cigarette smoke before these stupid laws.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh

i hate smoking. detest it. i'm glad here in nyc they are banning smoking in clubs and restaurants. so second hand smoke probably wont give me cancer anyway but i hate coming home smelling like an ashtray. plus it's hard to enjoy food with someone smoking next to you. if i'm wrong for curbing someone's rights for my comfort so be it. i'm sure a lot of smokers would bitch and complain if i lit up a cigar or some incense next to them while theyre trying to eat a sandwich.
Me too. I also used to wear soft contact lenses. The smoke would stay in them and irritate my eyes until I could get home to take them out.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by shanek
Yes. When you were asked for window or aisle seat, you were also asked for smoking or non-smoking.Smoking or non-smoking seats. I don't remember the option of non smoking flights

Originally posted by shanek
Only because of non-smoking policies in buildings, causing smokers to hang out by the door where I have to walk through them to get in and out. I had no problems avoiding cigarette smoke before these stupid laws. Surely it was more difficult to avoid smoke when the smokers were smoking indoors?

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by shanek


Uh, because it's a movie?

So what? He doesn't shoot heroin in the film. Nor does he drink alcohol or pretend to.

The smoking wasn't necessary, and for someone who is proud of not drinking and points it out with regularity, I find it hypocritical that he's practically pimping the use of cigarettes.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RichardR
Smoking or non-smoking seats. I don't remember the option of non smoking flights

Why would you need your own flight???

Surely it was more difficult to avoid smoke when the smokers were smoking indoors?

No, because most restaurant/office space owners knew of the potential complaints and voluntarily set up designated smoking areas. All I had to do was not go into those areas. When they banned smoking in the whole building, that's when I couldn't avoid it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Valmorian
So what? He doesn't shoot heroin in the film. Nor does he drink alcohol or pretend to.

Nor does he dress in a tutu and dance the cabbage patch while reciting Green Eggs and Ham. What's the point?

[RichardR]

Originally posted by shanek
Why would you need your own flight???
The question was "Were there non-smoking flights for non-smokers ?"

Originally posted by shanek
No, because most restaurant/office space owners knew of the potential complaints and voluntarily set up designated smoking areas. All I had to do was not go into those areas. When they banned smoking in the whole building, that's when I couldn't avoid it. But the smoke still travels from one section to another. I specifically remember being in a plane the row in front of the smoking row. I might as well have been sitting next to the guy who was smoking.

Personally, I don't find that I inhale any noticeable amount of smoke when I pass the smokers near the doors. They are outside, and the smoke disperses. But that’s just me – your experience must be different.

[Luceiia]

Originally posted by chapka
I've actually read the study in question It seems pretty clear-cut to me.

Yes, but did you understand the methodology? Please refer to This Page (http://www.davehitt.com/facts/) to get some facts on how that study was done as well as how studies should be done.

Originally posted by chapka
The most important message is, if you have children, don't smoke in your home.

To summarize: secondhand smoke in the home is bad for children, and long-term exposure in the home or workplace seems to be bad for everyone. I'd be glad to hear opposing points of view, but please read the study before you criticize it.

The following link says "********" (just as Penn and Teller did) and you're invited to peruse it.
Fact: The press release doesn't mention the one statistically significant result from the study, that children raised by smokers were 22% less likely to get lung cancer.
Whoops, looks like kids are safer living with smokers! (http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html)

Junkscience.com to the rescue...
A comparison and discussion of the WHO (solid data) and EPA (cherry-picked data) reports, which contradict each other...wonder why! (http://www.junkscience.com/news/euwsjets.htm)


Luceiia
Chocolate beats Tobacco!! (http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=chocolate&q2=tobacco&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us)

[shanek]

Originally posted by RichardR
The question was "Were there non-smoking flights for non-smokers ?"

And my question is, why would you need your own flight? Would not a separate part of the cabin reserved for non-smokers suffice?

Personally, I don't find that I inhale any noticeable amount of smoke when I pass the smokers near the doors. They are outside, and the smoke disperses. But that’s just me – your experience must be different.

Usually I've noticed smoke hanging under the eaves. I've had to go through a visible cloud of smoke sometimes.

[Marvel Frozen]

No, because most restaurant/office space owners knew of the potential complaints and voluntarily set up designated smoking areas. All I had to do was not go into those areas. When they banned smoking in the whole building, that's when I couldn't avoid it.
In my experience, non-smoking sections in restaurants don't do any good. I remember one time when me and some friends when to a restaurant with smoking and non-smoking sections. The minute I entered the restaurant it reeked of smoke. We got a seat in the non-smoking section, about as far away from the smoking section as possible, and there was still an overwhelming smell of smoke. Within minutes my eyes were burning, and I had a terrible sore throat. If I wasn't relying on my friends for transportation I would have left immediately. I can't say if this is similar to other places, but in that restaurant at least, I may as well have been sitting next to someone smoking. The non-smoking section didn't do any good at all.

[chapka]

Originally posted by Luceiia
Yes, but did you understand the methodology?

Yes, I did. Did you read the study? The lung cancer results, which are what the site you posted deals with, did show the weakest correlation to ETS. The non-cancer disease findings were not subject to these criticisms, and the studies are pretty damning in most areas, especially athsma effects and lung capacity.

In addition to clinical studies, we know that smoke ends up in the lungs of nonsmokers, that secondhand smoke causes cancer in lab animals, and that secondhand smoke causes noncancer diseases.

Originally posted by Luceiia
The following link says "********" (just as Penn and Teller did) and you're invited to peruse it.

Again, please READ THE STUDY. The page you post is about cancer risks in children of smokers. The EPA study was about non-cancer risks in children of smokers. The link you posted doesn't address these issues, because there's no way to address them. The studies are clear: SMOKING PARENTS HAVE SICK KIDS. Arguing about whether they also have cancer is important, but doesn't change the basic message that smoke is bad for kids. The critics of the study consistently blast the lung cancer findings, because there is no way to dispute the other findings, namely that children of smokers will get ear infections, pneumonia, bronchitis, and asthma. The page you linked to doesn't refute this; it doesn't even address it. In addition, the EPA has posted a detailed response to criticisms such as those you cite, at:

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html

Finally, may I note that the website you linked to is run by someone who has a serious agenda of his own, as he admits, and who doesn't list any degree or formal science education among his credentials. The EPA study was a peer-reviewed synthesis of peer-reviewed studies.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by shanek


Nor does he dress in a tutu and dance the cabbage patch while reciting Green Eggs and Ham. What's the point?

*Sigh* Apparently it eludes you. Penn and Teller often make it a point to bring up that they don't drink unsolicited. I've seen them do this quite a few times. When smoking, however, the only time I ever see them mention why they seem to have a hypocritical stance on drugs is when they are specifically questioned about it.

I find their stance on cigarette smoking to be hypocritical, basically. You don't agree, apparently. To which I say: So what?

[RichardR]

Originally posted by shanek
And my question is, why would you need your own flight? Would not a separate part of the cabin reserved for non-smokers suffice?
My response would be "no". (See my anecdote, above.) I forget who it was who said "having a no smoking section is a restaurant (or a plane) is a bit like having a no p*ssing section in a swimming pool", but I think he had a point.

Originally posted by shanek
Usually I've noticed smoke hanging under the eaves. I've had to go through a visible cloud of smoke sometimes. You have a more developed sense of smell than me, then.

Here in CA there are some buildings where they forbid you to smoke within 50 feet (or something), of the doorway. I think this is a bit silly, but that's what they are doing.

[spoonhandler]

As someone with hyper-responsive airways who cannot tolerate any kind of smoke let alone tobacco smoke, I can assure you the non-smoking section on a plane, bus or train or in a restaurant, pub, movie theatre or other public venue is a sad joke. My life has improved immeasurably since smoking in public transport and many public venues has been banned.

However, I still have problems when forced to walk the gauntlet of smokers loitering near doorways of the buildings in which I work. In the opinion of most smokers, I am overreacting. Tell that to my stupid lungs!

It amazes me that as a non-smoker, I am supposed to feel bad for asking a smoker to move away or stop. They feel permitted to impinge on the life and comfort of non-smokers and resent having any restriction on their choices. I don't choose to be an asthmatic. There's a good chance I wouldn't be asthmatic if I hadn't grown up in households with smokers.

[Luceiia]

Originally asked by Luceiia
Yes, but did you understand the methodology?

Originally posted by chapka


Yes, I did.

I'm skeptical of your claim. In fact, I disbelieve it entirely.

The non-cancer disease findings were not subject to these criticisms

Yes, yes they are.

In addition to clinical studies, we know that smoke ends up in the lungs of nonsmokers,

that secondhand smoke causes cancer in lab animals,

and that secondhand smoke causes noncancer diseases.

Obviously yes;

anything can cause cancer in rats...at least as far as the countless absurd studies I've read over the past 35 years that have shown a concrete carcinogenic effect of <insert latest fad here> on lab animals (such as saccharin given to rats at a human consumption rate of 4 tons per day was it?);

I've seen zero studies proving SHS causes anything but political windbags to come out of the woodwork.

The page you post is about cancer risks in children of smokers. The EPA study was about non-cancer risks in children of smokers. The link you posted doesn't address these issues, because there's no way to address them.

It does address them, quite clearly. It debunks them soundly, too.

the EPA has posted a detailed response to criticisms such as those you cite

Uh-huh, the EPA fudged numbers, meta-analyzed cherry-picked studies, and concluded hysterical (yet politically powerful) falsehoods...and now they wish to defend it all. I'll rush right over there to see their latest drivel with an open mind. Or maybe not.

Finally, may I note that the website you linked to is run by someone who has a serious agenda of his own, as he admits

Yeah, he says just about the exact same things most of the forum members here say -- that he wants honesty and reality instead of hype and bs. I rather respect that agenda of his.

[He] doesn't list any degree or formal science education among his credentials. The EPA study was a peer-reviewed synthesis of peer-reviewed studies.

Yeah. Kinda sad a non-credentialed commoner like ourselves can so easily and thoroughly debunk an EPA study isn't it? I guess they were banking on the hysteria to sweep any scientific scrutiny under the rug. I suppose, for the most part, their gamble paid off.


Luceiia
Chocolate pummels Hysteria! (http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=chocolate&q2=hysteria&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us)

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by spoonhandler
My life has improved immeasurably since smoking in public transport and many public venues has been banned.
If your life has been changed immeasurably, then how can even you tell it's changed at all? :D

[Supercharts]

True Story:
Went to a play last weekend. One of the characters in the play smoked. Sign out front stated that the character smoked Herbal cigaretts. BFD.

[chapka]

Originally posted by Luceiia


Uh-huh, the EPA fudged numbers, meta-analyzed cherry-picked studies, and concluded hysterical (yet politically powerful) falsehoods...and now they wish to defend it all. I'll rush right over there to see their latest drivel with an open mind. Or maybe not.



An open mind? God forbid.

Again, the EPA did not fudge numbers. They performed a metaanalysis on existing data. This means that, even if individual studies found data below the threshold of statistical significance, the fact that all studies did show smaller increases is significant. If you have a study of fifty people, a small increase in risk is not going to be significant. If you combine 30 studies of 50 people each, it might be.

Originally posted by Luceiia


Yeah, he says just about the exact same things most of the forum members here say -- that he wants honesty and reality instead of hype and bs. I rather respect that agenda of his.



No, what he says is that he believes that the risks of smoking have been overstated and that he created his web site to prevent evidence for that opinion. Just like he accuses his opponents of prejudging the issue. Elsewhere on his site, he also says:


when it comes to those carrying out the current war on smokers, no other group matches their tactics, approaches and arguments as well as the Nazis._ It?s a damn near perfect fit.


Is this the openminded source you trust without actually reading the study yourself? Or might this explain why his web site essentially parrots the tobacco industry campaign against the study?

Once more, let me point out that NOWHERE on that web site does he address the noncancer risks data, which was carried out with a more conservative methodology. This is because the data is incredibly clear to anyone who is willing to READ THE STUDY.

It's been said before, but the plural of anecdote is not data.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Valmorian
*Sigh* Apparently it eludes you. Penn and Teller often make it a point to bring up that they don't drink unsolicited. I've seen them do this quite a few times. When smoking, however, the only time I ever see them mention why they seem to have a hypocritical stance on drugs is when they are specifically questioned about it.Sorry to butt in uninvited... but I believe the objection P&T have to alcohol and most other drugs is that they impair your ability to reason and/or function. Smoking has a number of effects but I don't believe they are of the same sort of mental effect that P&T object to.

Perhaps a case of not all drugs being created equal (for sillier examples, I doubt they object to Cipro or Rogaine either). I may be misrepresenting their stance, but it seems a logical explanation to me.

btw, I really dislike smoking. I hate coming home after playing pool reeking of whatever crap somebody decided to light up. It tends to keep me out of bars and some restaurants. I know several people whose allergic reactions keep them from going out much at all. Health problems aside, I basically just find it annoying.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Valmorian


*Sigh* Apparently it eludes you. Penn and Teller often make it a point to bring up that they don't drink unsolicited. I've seen them do this quite a few times. When smoking, however, the only time I ever see them mention why they seem to have a hypocritical stance on drugs is when they are specifically questioned about it.

I find their stance on cigarette smoking to be hypocritical, basically. You don't agree, apparently. To which I say: So what?

I just think it's a bit much to conclude that based on one scene in a fictitious movie.

[shanek]

Originally posted by RichardR
My response would be "no". (See my anecdote, above.) I forget who it was who said "having a no smoking section is a restaurant (or a plane) is a bit like having a no p*ssing section in a swimming pool", but I think he had a point.

I don't. I'm extremely allergic to cigarette smoke, and the only time I had a problem with a no smoking area in a restaurant was when it moved during the meal and all of a sudden I was in a smoking section. I definitely let the manager have an earful there. I find cigarette smoke very easy to avoid, except in cases I've already mentioned.

You have a more developed sense of smell than me, then.

Developed sense of smell??? I said it was visible!!!

Here in CA there are some buildings where they forbid you to smoke within 50 feet (or something), of the doorway. I think this is a bit silly, but that's what they are doing.

Yeah, it's going to ridiculous lengths. And, this surprises anyone?

[shanek]

Originally posted by spoonhandler
It amazes me that as a non-smoker, I am supposed to feel bad for asking a smoker to move away or stop. They feel permitted to impinge on the life and comfort of non-smokers and resent having any restriction on their choices. I don't choose to be an asthmatic.

But you do choose to go into the restaurant. If the restaurant doesn't have adequate ventilation for the non-smoking area, don't go to the restaurant and let the management know why.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Supercharts
True Story:
Went to a play last weekend. One of the characters in the play smoked. Sign out front stated that the character smoked Herbal cigaretts. BFD.

Non-smoking actors smoke herbal cigarettes on stage and the screen so that they don't become addicted. I don't know why someone would want to advertise that fact, though. (Well, unless it's the herbal cigarette makers.)

[voidx]

hmmm interesting comments to say the least from chapka and luceiia. I'll try and find out if a similar study was done in Canada. The Canadian health department ads state very clearly that long exposure to SHS does cause certain types of cancer if I remember correctly, as the tag line of the whole ad campaign goes to the effect of SHS kills! In that regard its focus seems to differ from that of the EPA study.

Also I find it a little alarming that even though people say off-handed that they don't like the fact that the study may have been done incorrectly, that they don't much care either as they hate coming home smelling of smoke and have no sympathy for smokers. Lets do try and stay objective. Your personal feeling of hating to come home smelling of smoke, while valid on one level, should not be a justification for thinking its ok that a study may have been done and quoted incorrectly. As Shanek stated, you choose to go to whatever restaurant it is you went into. So be objective and tell them honestly that you do not appreciate it and would much more consider going to their restaurant if it was non-smoking, or if a properly ventilated smoking area was provided. In some area's it is still legally up to each individual restaurant or bar or what have you to decide if they wish to be non-smoking or not. If they've chosen to support a smoking clientele, you can object and suggest they do not. If they still continue to support that clientele, then don't go.

That is why I'm so interesting in these studies and whether their findings are accurate. If smoking causes long-term health problems, and potentially cancer, then yes, it makes sense to move to a policy of enforcing non-smoking environments. If it merely is an irritant, causing bad smell, and in more sensitive people watering eyes, burning throat sensations and the like, well then I think its more up to the business to decide what type of clientele they wish to cater too. I'm a non-smoker myself, and like many of you, would prefer not to come home smelling of an ashtray. But I've never in my experience been in a restaurant that made within minutes my eyes water and my throat burn. I think some people when they get emotional exaggerate just how much smoke affects them and how quickly. Perhaps I'm not overly sensitive to cigarette smoke, who knows, but regardless I think more people need to cut out their personal feelings and try and look at the issue objectively.

[Morchella]

I can remember when the tobacco companies would trot out a 90 year old that chained smoked all his life and said, "Looky here". Selective data mining can always come up with results that confirm your prejudice. I believe that Penn and Teller could be trying to justify their habit by selecting the studies that back up their preconcieved notions. The studies that confirm that second hand smoke is harmful are overwhelming. I wonder where P&T get their info? I doubt their resources are credible, Probably financed by the tobacco companies.
I think they are probably bringing this up because Nevadans are discussing a statewide anti tobacco law. You can imagine all the resistance to it with all the all night casinos and bars in Nevada. Already there are a few non smoking casinos and the airports are non-smoking too. It won't be long before they follow Californias' lead and ban smoking indoors. I welcome it. Separate smoking sections never worked especially for the people that had to work there.
So nyaa nyaa all you drug addicts. Take your disgusting habit out of my air space.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Morchella
I believe that Penn and Teller could be trying to justify their habit by selecting the studies that back up their preconcieved notions.

What habit? They're both nonsmokers!

So nyaa nyaa all you drug addicts. Take your disgusting habit out of my air space.

Your air space??? Since when is the area inside a PRIVATELY-OWNED bar or restaurant your air space???

[shanek]

I had this experience a couple of years back when I went to Utah. I made a faux pas at a restaurant when I habitually asked for a seat in non-smoking, only to be met with a strange look. I didn't know at the time that Utah had banned smoking in all restaurants etc.

I was in Orem at the time, over at Novell (before they consolidated their offices in Provo) and was talking with some of the guys there about it. We were in a break room with large windows facing the mountains to the north, where an industrial area squelched out a permanent brown haze obscuring the mountains. So when they bragged that they were in a "clean air state," I just gestured northward and said, "Good job!"

[spoonhandler]

iconoclast wrote:

If your life has been changed immeasurably, then how can even you tell it's changed at all?

:)

You're absolutely right - that was a piece of artistic licence that should not be permitted to go unpunished.

My life improved by a measurable amount - I'm just not sure what units I should use to express it and how they are measured.

Negative number of wheezes? Positive units of Smile? Where did I point that damn Quality Of Life tape measure? :D

And Shanek: Does a smoker leave a venue when they see their choices affecting others? Do they see their choices affecting others? I admit though, I do avoid venues where I know smoking is permitted and I do what I can to avoid smokers. I've moved tables, chosen other places to eat and changed paths into and out of the building to do so.

[shanek]

Originally posted by spoonhandler
And Shanek: Does a smoker leave a venue when they see their choices affecting others? Do they see their choices affecting others?

The point is, it should be up to whomever owns the property. If you don't like it, don't give them your business.

[spoonhandler]

The point is, it should be up to whomever owns the property. If you don't like it, don't give them your business.

Accepted and agreed. :)

[Morchella]

Shanek
Over 4000 posts? Get a life lard ass. Update your postscript too. It's a bunch of drivel just like your writing.

[Thumper]

So, from what I've read so far, we have a metastudy from the EPA that is flawed and isn't flawed showing there is a non-cancer danger to second-hand smoke with no appreciable danger of getting cancer from SHS. Is this correct?

Then why do smokers get cancer if they are breathing the same stuff SHS breathers are breathing and not getting cancer from?

[Torlack]

Originally posted by Thumper

Then why do smokers get cancer if they are breathing the same stuff SHS breathers are breathing and not getting cancer from?

Because smokers have been kind enough to already filter most of the bad trash out of the smoke by using THEIR LUNGS?

[Thumper]

then what's burning on the end of the cigarette away from their mouth? non-cancerous material?

[Torlack]

Are you also saying that standing 5 feet away from someone who farts is a bad as having them fart with their butt in your face?

[chapka]

Originally posted by Thumper
So, from what I've read so far, we have a metastudy from the EPA that is flawed and isn't flawed showing there is a non-cancer danger to second-hand smoke with no appreciable danger of getting cancer from SHS. Is this correct?

Not exactly.

There is a report by the EPA. One section of the report, a metaanalysis of cancer studies, has been criticized. The critics say that the data is inconclusive. The EPA, and the scientists who performed and reviewed the study, say that it does indicate that secondhand smokers get cancer.

The rest of the report is very clear and has not been challenged; it says that secondhand smoke does cause many noncancer health problems in those regularly exposed to secondhand smoke.

Originally posted by Thumper
Then why do smokers get cancer if they are breathing the same stuff SHS breathers are breathing and not getting cancer from?

Because lung cancer is rare overall and often doesn't occur until long after exposure, it's difficult to study it, and difficult to get statistically significant results in humans. But the question you ask is exactly why the EPA used a laxer standard, called a one-tail analysis. The rationale is: we know that there are carcinogens in nonsmokers' lungs, we can be fairly sure that it's not reducing their cancer risk, and therefore even a smaller statistical result is more likely to be significant. EPA also boosted the reliability of the study by examining the exposure level data in those studies that drew distinctions on how much smoke someone was exposed to.

Even the study's critics can't plausibly claim that ETS has been proven not to cause cancer. They can only say that it hasn't been proven to cause cancer, which is not the same thing.

[Marvel Frozen]

The United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, the California Environmental Protection Agency, the United Kingdom Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health, the World Health Organization, and the United States National Toxicology Program have all done studies that concluded that Second hand smoke is a health hazard. (Although the tobacco industry has harshly criticized the studies done by the EPA and the WHO)

I found the study done by the CEPA to be particularly interesting. They did a study to determine the levels of toxic materials in "sidestream smoke" (basically the smoke from the burning end of the cigarette). The found high levels of acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, nicotine, and other hazardous materials. You can read more about the study here :


http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/resnotes/notes/96-2.htm

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by shanek


I just think it's a bit much to conclude that based on one scene in a fictitious movie.

Since this response has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, I'll simply repeat my previous post:


*Sigh* Apparently it eludes you. Penn and Teller often make it a point to bring up that they don't drink unsolicited. I've seen them do this quite a few times. When smoking, however, the only time I ever see them mention why they seem to have a hypocritical stance on drugs is when they are specifically questioned about it.

I find their stance on cigarette smoking to be hypocritical, basically. You don't agree, apparently. To which I say: So what?

----

Let me spell it out more clearly: Penn and Teller ACTIVELY emphasize that they don't drink. They do so without any prompting on numerous occasions. The only time I've ever seen them say anything about smoking is when they are specifically questioned on the point.

Now, whether this is because they selectively choose to aim their derision at mind-altering substances, or whatever, it comes across as hypocritical to me. Both are recreational drugs that cause harm to the user.

This has little to do SPECIFICALLY with the movie Penn and Teller get killed.

[scribble]

Originally posted by shanek


The point is, it should be up to whomever owns the property. If you don't like it, don't give them your business.

Amen.

Just a few things that occured to me while browsing this thread:

"Having a no-smoking secton in a restaurant is like having a no-peeing section in a pool!"

I was just having a similar conversation with a friend last night, and he told me a humorous anecdote that makes shanek's point. He said he was at his office, enjoying a cigarette, when some kids fromt he local highschool yearbook came in to ask him to buy some advertising space in the back. They saw him smoking and one says to the other, "Hey, look, there's someone smoking in public!"

To which he responded: "In public? Funny that, I thought this was MY office."

He bought the advert space, too. Heh.

If I were a bar or restaurant owner and The Man wanted to pass legislation to tell me how to do business -- well, that's antitheticl to capitalism, isn't it? But then there's plenty of ridiculous laws like that on the books already... I love what America is supposed to stand for, I'm so disappointed in how it often doesn't.

Anyhow enough rambling. If it matters, despite my best efforts to quit about a year ago, I'm a smoker.

-Chris

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Torlack
Are you also saying that standing 5 feet away from someone who farts is a bad as having them fart with their butt in your face?

lol

only in a matter of degrees. The same chemicals are there floating in the air, they are just not as concentrated.

But you have a good point, let's illegalize farting in public.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by scribble
If I were a bar or restaurant owner and The Man wanted to pass legislation to tell me how to do business -- well, that's antitheticl to capitalism, isn't it? But then there's plenty of ridiculous laws like that on the books already...

Do you feel that way about all laws that affect how a restaurant can be run, or just some?

[UnrepentantSinner]

As an unrepenatn smoker, I hate to admit my cat coughs as lot more than she should than would be caused by hairballs.

My wife's children were for years back-and-forth between a house where everyone smoked and one where no one smoked. There isn't a shred of doubt in my mind about the effects of second-hand smoke; there was a dramatic difference in the kids' coughing, number of colds, bronchitis and overall health.

For the last four years they've lived with me and my wife in a smoke-free house and their health problems are gone. Only when they spend time with their father, a heavy smoker, do they come back coughing or otherwise sick.

Anecdotal evidence, I know, but convincing to me. I'm disappointed in Penn and Teller; whether the thoery is proven or not, it's hardly woo-woo material.

Originally posted by kittynh
I knew my daughters pediatrician always asks parents if they smoke. She also asks if the family uses a wood stove. Then she writes it in the kids file. She claimed when I asked her that kids in smoking households have more upper resp. infections. But, I just took her word for it, and didn't ask for proof

I've had more than one doctor tell me that if they see an infant with bronchitis, they can be certain there is a smoker in their house.

I don't take any chances around my kids. I smoke outside.

[thaiboxerken]

"There isn't a shred of doubt in my mind about the effects of second-hand smoke; there was a dramatic difference in the kids' coughing, number of colds, bronchitis and overall health."

Do you realize the value of anecdotal evidence in this forum?

"Anecdotal evidence, I know, but convincing to me. I'm disappointed in Penn and Teller; whether the thoery is proven or not, it's hardly woo-woo material."

Yes, the psychic believers use the same type of reasoning.

I don't care for smoking, but since I don't like doesn't mean I'm going to try to legislate that everyone to stop doing it.

If anyone knows a person being treated for second-hand smoke, please present the medical documents.

[shanek]

Originally posted by sundog
My wife's children were for years back-and-forth between a house where everyone smoked and one where no one smoked. There isn't a shred of doubt in my mind about the effects of second-hand smoke; there was a dramatic difference in the kids' coughing, number of colds, bronchitis and overall health.

For the last four years they've lived with me and my wife in a smoke-free house and their health problems are gone. Only when they spend time with their father, a heavy smoker, do they come back coughing or otherwise sick.

Anecdotal evidence, I know, but convincing to me. I'm disappointed in Penn and Teller; whether the thoery is proven or not, it's hardly woo-woo material.

Except that P&T were talking about cancer specifically.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
"There isn't a shred of doubt in my mind about the effects of second-hand smoke; there was a dramatic difference in the kids' coughing, number of colds, bronchitis and overall health."

Do you realize the value of anecdotal evidence in this forum?

"Anecdotal evidence, I know, but convincing to me. I'm disappointed in Penn and Teller; whether the thoery is proven or not, it's hardly woo-woo material."

Yes, the psychic believers use the same type of reasoning.

I don't care for smoking, but since I don't like doesn't mean I'm going to try to legislate that everyone to stop doing it.

If anyone knows a person being treated for second-hand smoke, please present the medical documents.

:) Years of observation by a competent observer is "anecdotal evidence" of a rather high quality.

Whether you agree or not, a discussion of the effects (or non-effects) of second hand smoke is not mystical in any way, and is not a woo-woo topic.

I'm surprised at your heat. I am simply telling you my observations.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by sundog


:) Years of observation by a competent observer is "anecdotal evidence" of a rather high quality.

Whether you agree or not, a discussion of the effects (or non-effects) of second hand smoke is not mystical in any way, and is not a woo-woo topic.

I'm surprised at your heat. I am simply telling you my observations.

Again, if you have a medical diagnosis of someone that is suffering from second-hand smoke, please come forth with it. The effects of second-hand smoke is woo-woo.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Again, if you have a medical diagnosis of someone that is suffering from second-hand smoke, please come forth with it. The effects of second-hand smoke is woo-woo.

Exactly why? Exactly what is your definition of woo-woo?

This is a medical and scientific subject that may or may not be true. You cannot point to a single "supernatural" thing about it.

Again, I feel free to share my personal experiences here, just as you feel free to ignore them. That doesn't invalidate them in the least.

You are being unscientific. My experiences are of course not conclusive, but neither are they completely dismissable as you seem to think. Doctors don't diagnose constant bouts of bronchitis as having been caused by second-hand smoke, so your request that I provide such evidence is just silly. But by the way, one of the questions the doctor always asks is "Is there a smoker in the house?"

[thaiboxerken]

Exactly why? Exactly what is your definition of woo-woo?

Belief in ******** is woo-woo.

This is a medical and scientific subject that may or may not be true. You cannot point to a single "supernatural" thing about it.

Except for these mysterious many of people that have died from second-hand smoke. Where are they? Who are they?

Again, I feel free to share my personal experiences here, just as you feel free to ignore them. That doesn't invalidate them in the least.

Support your observations with some valid facts. Your dislike of smoking is more likely the cause of your observations than actual events. I don't like smoking either, but get real.

You are being unscientific. My experiences are of course not conclusive, but neither are they completely dismissable as you seem to think.

You have no data as back up your assertions, nothing substantial, that is.



Doctors don't diagnose constant bouts of bronchitis as having been caused by second-hand smoke, so your request that I provide such evidence is just silly.

Why? Why don't doctors diagnose people have suffering from second-hand smoke?

But by the way, one of the questions the doctor always asks is "Is there a smoker in the house?"

Yes, second hand smoke has been known to irrate people with lung conditions.. pre-existing conditions, but there is no evidence of second-hand smoke actually causing ailments.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Exactly why? Exactly what is your definition of woo-woo?

Belief in ******** is woo-woo.


I'm not trying to prove anything by my observations - they are just that, observations. There are entire branches of science which depend upon pure observation. It's hardly defensible or scientific to dismiss them entirely.

I am troubled by your definition of "woo-woo". (Why am I suddenly flashing to that lecture scene in High Anxiety?) That seems very broad.

Although I have no intention of doing so, I could make a case that it's a woo-woo belief that the nonsmoker is somehow magically protected from the very same chemicals that make the smoker sick. I don't seriously make the point of course; I'm just pointing out that if there's any "woo-woo" involved, it's in the other direction. By what mechanism are nonsmokers protected from things known to hurt a smoker? It's an interesting question. Do you know of any research in that direction?

You contend that studies fail to reveal a connection. I accept that. I also know that scientists might change their mind next week about this, and that it's simply premature to label it "bs".

I reserve the "bs" label and the "woo-woo" label for things that are downright unscientific. This is a simple difference of opinion over a medical question; it is not worthy of either side to dismiss the other's opinions as bs, in my opinion.

[chapka]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[B]

Except for these mysterious many of people that have died from second-hand smoke. Where are they? Who are they?

(...)

Yes, second hand smoke has been known to irrate people with lung conditions.. pre-existing conditions, but there is no evidence of second-hand smoke actually causing ailments.

Yes there is. Go to:

http://www.epa.gov/nceawww1/ets/etsindex.htm

Download chapter 7.

Among other data, a 1986 Surgeon General's report concluded that children of smokers are 20%-40% more likely to be hospitalized with bronchitis and pneumonia. Dozens of studies have been done, and nearly all of them show positive correlations between secondhand smoke and health problems including lung infections, ear infections, athsma, and crib death. As far as athsma is concerned, the evidence is that ETS actually causes athsma in children who would not otherwise develop it. There's no scientific basis I'm aware of for the idea that secondhand smoke only affects preexisting medical conditions.

In addition, many health conditions are diagnosed by doctors based only on patient or family observation; for example, food and drug allergies. If the effect is repeated and has a plausible mechanism, a doctor will take it seriously. If A happens after B once, it's likely to be a coincidence. If B happens every time A happens, it's possible there's a connection. Isn't observation the basis of science?

[NWilner]

Chapka is correct in almost every detail, and has presented the secondhand smoke issues in depth.

The "bull" in the debate comes from interested parties, i.e. the tobacco industry.

I fought the tobacco boys in court for years. They are liars. They are not capable of telling the truth about anything.
They said the same thing about active smoking that they now say about secondhand.

Don't buy it.

[Aoidoi]

I just saw the P&T episode. They confined themselves to smoking laws in restaurants as an infringement on individual rights and that no study demonstrates that second hand smoke is a cancer risk.

I do not recall them arguing smoking is healthy (or non-damaging) or anything about the effects of smoke on children, their argument seemed limited to the government using passing anti-smoking measures due to their popularity rather than sound science.

They did also explicitly state they are non-smokers and dislike second hand smoke personally.

I was mildly annoyed when they trotted out the old "I've worked as a bartender for 40 years without any problems from the smoke" guy, I mean that was just the definition of anecdotal evidence. The most convincing argument was from the libertarian radio guy... arguing that it's not the business of the government to regulate this sort of behaviour seems a much better argument than just showing there's no demonstrated carcinogenic effect from second hand smoke (at least to me).

[voidx]

Sundog, your were the first one to use the term woo-woo, so it seems a tad silly to keep insisting on thaiboxerken to provide a definition for it. You used it yourself, you tell us what it means. Just an observation ;)

I'd also be careful about your statements about the value of observation. Any scientific thesis based solely on pure observation wouldn't be very well founded. It could be a component of a larger testing procedure, but cannot be taken entirely on its own merit. For example the basis of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test was pure observation, and look at how vague, and situation specific it often is. A more in depth look:

http://skepdic.com/myersb.html

Obviously Chapka has quite an in depth knowledge of the studies done, which is much appreciated, it has shed some light on things for me. And has been careful to point out the focus of the study, just as others have pointed out the focus of the P&T episode so lets have everyone realize that. Obviously smoking is bad for you, and any effort to get people to quit smoking is a valid effort, one which I'm sure any logical person would not disagree with. However, I find it unethical and alarmist to boost any portion of any study in an effort to either guilt, or scare a certain demographic into a course of action. Inhaling SHS obviously isn't doing you any good, and from what I'm seeing here it has the potential to exasberate certain conditions and making recurring ailments such as bronchitis and asthma more likely. But as Chapka mentions, because the effects of SHS insofar as cancer is concerned do not become visible until much later, if they can be proved to be the cause at all, its hard to draw a conclusive link between SHS and cancer. It appears likely, and that seems logical, but its not concrete. So for an agency such as Health Canada to be issuing ads stating conclusively that SHS causes cancer and kills, well that is irresponsible. In my opinion. Check this link:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/media/releases/2002/2002_64bk3.htm

and find it interesting that when it comes to Cancer they mention 'and Other Cancers". One would think they would take the opportunity to educate the public on just what types of cancer it can cause. I know I for one would love to know for sure.

[thaiboxerken]

" By what mechanism are nonsmokers protected from things known to hurt a smoker?"

Dose makes the poison. The dissipation of smoke into the air is the mechanism that protects a non-smoker from the smoke. Maybe if you locked lips with a smoker that exhales, you'd have the ill-effects of second-hand smoke.

[thaiboxerken]

I reserve the "bs" label and the "woo-woo" label for things that are downright unscientific.

The studies that conclude that second-hand smoke is harmful have been shown to be unscientific.

[chapka]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
The studies that conclude that second-hand smoke is harmful have been shown to be unscientific.

By whom? This isn't even anecdotal evidence; it's bare assertion. Provide some evidence or go away. Have you even read any of dozens and dozens of peer-reviewed studies you're dismissing as "unscientific"?

Again, even the tobacco industry has only claimed that one aspect of one metastudy was "unscientific." There have been literally DOZENS of studies, and at least two other U.S. metastudies, which conclude that secondhand smoke causes diseaase, including cancer.

The cancer studies speak for themselves, even without the metaanalysis. Almost every study, even if it doesn't reach statistical significance (because it's a difficult disease to study), has a small positive correlation, and every study which distinguishes between levels of exposure shows a correlation between cancer occurrence and exposure. If you put enough of these studies together, you can be pretty sure it's not a fluke. And to be clear, I'm not disregarding the metaanalysis because I think it's flawed, but because arguing about it is the tobacco industry's way of distracting people from the overall conclusions of every large study ever done. I think this study, and the other large-scale studies, provide plenty of evidence to link ETS to lung cancer in nonsmokers.

Some people also seem to be dismissing noncancer risks, as though they wouldn't justify nonsmoking laws on their own. So let's be clear. The EPA estimate is that about 3,000 people will die of lung cancer this year, but that literally MILLIONS of children will develop infections, including hundreds of thousands of lung infections, thousands of which will require hospitalization. In addition, 26,000 children who would otherwise be healthy will develop athsma. Finally, 2,000 to 3,000 infants will die in their cribs because their parents smoke. If that doesn't qualify as a health risk, I don't know what does.

I respect the hardcore libertarian position, although I disagree with it. But if you agree with workplace health and safety laws in general, I don't see how you can justify making an exception for tobacco. Or is this like how throwing a candy wrapper on the ground is littering, but throwing a (equally non-biodegradable) cigarette butt on the ground doesn't seem to be?

[thaiboxerken]

"But if you agree with workplace health and safety laws in general, I don't see how you can justify making an exception for tobacco."

I agree with the workplace non-smoking laws and other public places laws, I don't agree with forcing private businesses to become non-smoking. I also don't support junk-science that the EPA uses on a consistent basis.

[shanek]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I agree with the workplace non-smoking laws...I don't agree with forcing private businesses to become non-smoking.

Uh, aren't those two positions completely contradictary?

[zakur]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I agree with the workplace non-smoking laws and other public places laws, I don't agree with forcing private businesses to become non-smoking. If a private business has employees, isn't it a workplace?

[JAR]

I doubt the second hand smoke studies that say 50,000 people a year die from it are accurate. Anyone who has inhaled both second hand and first hand smoke can tell you that the tingling feeling nicotine provides is not present with second hand smoke which suggests that people aren't getting enough tobacco in their system from second hand smoke for it to do any harm.But I do support having non-smoking areas because second hand smoke has an irritating aroma. My older brother rightly compared smoking around other people to breaking wind when one is around other people.

[NWilner]

Not really so, JAR. Serum cotinine, a metabolite of nicotine, is elevated significantly in passive smokers. Beyond that observation, your remark implies a threshold for carcinogenic or pathogenic effect, but most thinking today supports a linear no threshold model for dose response.

[JAR]

Originally posted by NWilner
most thinking today supports a linear no threshold model for dose response.

I agree with you assuming that you mean that the dosage required to get a nicotine buzz, precancerous lesions(which cause cancer) or any other tobacco related disease differs from person to person. I'll believe the 50,000 death toll from now on until I have good evidence that it is inaccurate.

[NWilner]

Well, I don't necessarily adopt 50K, because I think the real "number" is probably a matter of some speculation, but....

The nicotine buzz you mention is definitely affected by individual factors, especially tolerance from chronic use. Neversmokers may feel nicotine in much less concentration that experienced smokers.

Not only cotintine but also certain tobacco specific nitrosamines, very carcinogenic compounds found only in tobacco, are found in the urine of passively exposed nonsmokers. There is no way for these compounds, known as nitrosonornicotine (NNN), NNK, and NAM, to get into the body of nonsmokers, except through sidestream cig smoke.

For one I don't want these carcinogens, in any quantity, in me, if I can help it.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Valmorian


I've always found it bizarre that Penn frowns upon liquor consumption, but then turns around and smokes.

Strange.

I'd rather be in a room with a person smoking than be on the road with a drunk driver.

[NWilner]

Sure, but to be fair, the comparison would be whether you would want to be in a room with a drinker or with a smoker.

Unlike tobacco, etoh *can* be used safely and responsibly. Consumption of 2 oz or so per day seems to be beneficial.

This does not condone intoxicated driving, whether intoxication comes from alcohol or drugs.

[arcticpenguin]

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=2363894

Second hand smoke linked to children's tooth decay.

:confused: :confused: :confused: