The Bogus 'Science' of Secondhand Smoke

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yes, the strange politics of tobacco.

And that's without bringing that "other" tobacco into the equation.

[RaspberrySwirl 20]

Yes, the strange politics of tobacco.

And that's without bringing that "other" tobacco into the equation.

I know NOTHING!

....

What? >.> <.<

[peezey 0]

States impose tobacco tax. States sue tobacco companies. The federal government will never ban cigarettes, but I won't be surprised if states will at some point.

[jordanianprincess 0]

States impose tobacco tax. States sue tobacco companies. The federal government will never ban cigarettes, but I won't be surprised if states will at some point.

That is probebly very true for CA. It seems that we support every kind of anit-smoking law, did you know its against the law to smoke at the beach? Pretty soon there will be no where to smoke but the moon! (I don't smoke)

[garya505 2]

States impose tobacco tax. States sue tobacco companies. The federal government will never ban cigarettes, but I won't be surprised if states will at some point.

That is probebly very true for CA. It seems that we support every kind of anit-smoking law, did you know its against the law to smoke at the beach? Pretty soon there will be no where to smoke but the moon! (I don't smoke)

Nope, can't smoke on the moon either on account of no oxygen there.

[ChristinaM 0]

Let's say that hypothetically scientists come up with a smokeless cigarette. Would that make the anti-smoking lobby repeal all the laws about smoking? Would the city of Bangor here in my home state allow people to smoke int he car with their kids again, because it's non-harmful? Heck no!

As I said in the thread associated with that issue, smoking has become an emotional issue as opposed to a scientific one. Once something gets to that stage, rational discourse is nigh-on impossible.

I'm with Gary on this one.

[Jenn! 918]

Let's say that hypothetically scientists come up with a smokeless cigarette. Would that make the anti-smoking lobby repeal all the laws about smoking? Would the city of Bangor here in my home state allow people to smoke int he car with their kids again, because it's non-harmful? Heck no!

As I said in the thread associated with that issue, smoking has become an emotional issue as opposed to a scientific one. Once something gets to that stage, rational discourse is nigh-on impossible.

I'm with Gary on this one.

Excellent point, Christina.

[garya505 2]

Let's say that hypothetically scientists come up with a smokeless cigarette. Would that make the anti-smoking lobby repeal all the laws about smoking? Would the city of Bangor here in my home state allow people to smoke int he car with their kids again, because it's non-harmful? Heck no!

As I said in the thread associated with that issue, smoking has become an emotional issue as opposed to a scientific one. Once something gets to that stage, rational discourse is nigh-on impossible.

I'm with Gary on this one.

It's not an emotional issue with most people. I really don't care who smokes as long as they don't force me to breath it. I think people have a right to do what they want as long as they dont hurt anyone while doing it.

Go ahead, try to convince me that it's not harmful to me to breath the smoke that gives smokers lung cancer as well as a bunch of other health problems. What a joke.

[Mags 112]

Many of the Brits here will remember Roy Castle. Never smoked in his life yet died of lung cancer. He attributed his contracting of the disease to him spending many years working in smoke filled clubs.

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

Edited February 2, 2007 by mags

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Let's say that hypothetically scientists come up with a smokeless cigarette. Would that make the anti-smoking lobby repeal all the laws about smoking? Would the city of Bangor here in my home state allow people to smoke int he car with their kids again, because it's non-harmful? Heck no!

As I said in the thread associated with that issue, smoking has become an emotional issue as opposed to a scientific one. Once something gets to that stage, rational discourse is nigh-on impossible.

I'm with Gary on this one.

Christina, we most often agree on things so I hope you'll see really what this original post was all about. This lobbyist hack of a scientist publishes his professional opinion and people like Gary treat him like a prophet. Even when it was pointed out that he has an exclusive contract with the Tobacco Industry, Gary sees that as no problem with him giving his unbiased, scientific opinion. That to me is preposterous and ludicrous. It's a sham! There are plenty of studies that have been done on the health consequences of passive smoke - I've posted links to them. This guy's a charlaton! We can discuss the pros and cons of laws concerning smoking but let's call a spade a spade here and not let such crooks get away with deceiving the public with deliberate disinformation no matter what side of the fence they are on!

[Alex+R 0]

Many of the Brits here will remember Roy Castle. Never smoked in his life yet died of lung cancer. He attributed his contracting of the disease to him spending many years working in smoke filled clubs.

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

A teacher of mine got lung cancer without ever having smoked a cigarette in her life. She attributed it to growing up in a house with parents who smoked so much the formerly white walls were yellow.

[Mags 112]

Many of the Brits here will remember Roy Castle. Never smoked in his life yet died of lung cancer. He attributed his contracting of the disease to him spending many years working in smoke filled clubs.

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

A teacher of mine got lung cancer without ever having smoked a cigarette in her life. She attributed it to growing up in a house with parents who smoked so much the formerly white walls were yellow.

I'll tell you something I did to my late Mother many years ago. She smoked (and died of lung cancer btw) and I hated it. Absolutely hated it. To the point that I refused to enter a room if she had a ** lit. Anyway, to prove my point (and to show how obnoxious a teenager I was) I washed half of the ceiling in the lounge. Just half. By the time I had finished one half was white, the other a mid yellow.

She came home, told me off, my Dad cut the plugs off of my TV, I was grounded etc etc. AND it didn't do any good, she smoked up until she found it physically impossible to do so anymore, about a week before she died.

She always said she would have loved to give up, she just found she didn't have the willpower...plus she always admitted that she enjoyed it. Hard to give up something you enjoy.

Edited February 2, 2007 by mags

[DeadPoolX 9]

I'll tell you something I did to my late Mother many years ago. She smoked (and died of lung cancer btw) and I hated it. Absolutely hated it. To the point that I refused to enter a room if she had a ** lit. Anyway, to prove my point (and to show how obnoxious a teenager I was) I washed half of the ceiling in the lounge. Just half. By the time I had finished one half was white, the other a mid yellow.

She came home, told me off, my Dad cut the plugs off of my TV, I was grounded etc etc. AND it didn't do any good, she smoked up until she found it physically impossible to do so anymore, about a week before she died.

She always said she would have loved to give up, she just found she didn't have the willpower...plus she always admitted that she enjoyed it. Hard to give up something you enjoy.

I feel for you, Mags. My mother died of lung cancer in 2005. She was a heavy smoker as well.

[KarenCee 3]

Well, I spoke my peace a few threads ago on this subject as well. I still maintain that second hand smoke is harmful to those who breathe it in confined spaces, such as those poor children who have to suffer it while mommy and/or daddy smoke in the car. They don't have a voice in this and it makes me sad and angry at the same time. I could care less who smokes and how much. All I wish for is that smokers be respectful of those who hate the smell of it and hate breathing the noxious smoke from them as well.

Personally I think this kind of "research" is just what some smokers love to read about, since it seems to validate what they do.

Edited February 2, 2007 by KarenCee

[kerewin21 2]

There's nothing "bogus" about the science that shows secondhand smoke is linked with SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome)