2nd Hand Smoke

[Aoidoi]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2nd Hand Smoke

*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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2nd Hand Smoke

*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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

Summary

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]

Re: Summary

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]

Re: Summary

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.

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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2nd Hand Smoke

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.