2nd Hand Smoke

[scribble]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

Re: children and second hand smoke

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]

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.

 

[Guest]

"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]

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.

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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]

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]

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?