The Bogus 'Science' of Secondhand Smoke

[GaryC 7]

Secondhand smoke should be illegal for the same reason it's illegal to litter. It's dirty.

ETA: And by that, of course, I mean it should be illegal to smoke, anywhere, anytime. If you want to feel a rush, snort coke or chew tobacco. At least you're not polluting someone elses air.

Oh God no. I work in a factory fixing machines. Sometimes that requires me to sit and sometime lie on the floor to do some work. I HATE THE CHEWERS! They are always spitting on the floor where I gotta work!

[Kinsey 0]

For what it's worth, here's my opinion.

Nobody is debating that the toxins in cigarettes are harmful to the actual smokers. Of course, why would the smoke that comes out of those same cigarettes not be harmful? You surely aren't puffing out purified air. Even if it isn't dangerous unless it's in high amounts for long periods of time, I still don't want it in my face. My right to breathe fresh air trumps your right to suck down smoke.

It's ridiculous that I should even have to smell smoke for a second when I'm outside. If people want to smoke they should have big warehouses where you all go and you can smoke yourselves silly. Of course, who would want to sit around all that smoke? Quite the dilemma.

The government will never ban it, and why would they? If people are dumb enough to smoke, knowing the effects it will have on their health, and on top of that, pay for it, why would they ever ban it?

There are plenty of things you could do to harm yourself, the government can't baby you all your life. You could jump off a cliff anytime you want. Should we get rid of all the cliffs as a precautionary measure?

I don't care if you smoke, but I should not ever have to breathe it in.

If smokers want to kill themselves they should know that there are probably cheaper ways to go about it.

[ChristinaM 0]

I like the bubbles that they have at Heathrow airport. They are contained with walls that bend over at the top, and ventilated via filters on every available wall space. The smoke does not travel anywhere, and even the bubble is not thick with smoke. It's a good solution, IMHO, because the smokers can smoke and the non-smokers can stay outside of it.

Interestingly enough, a lot of bars and restaurants put in expensive filtration systems to make smoking areas contained. All that money was then wasted when the state instead decided to ban it inside completely. A lot of small business people didn't like that.

[Kinsey 0]

Here in Cook County (specifically south; Orland Park, Tinley Park, etc) the smoking ban was recently lifted, because after it was imposed businesses complained of losing half of their customers.

It doesn't usually bother me in restaurants. I sit in non-smoking and I have yet to be bothered with smoke. When I go to a bar or a pool hall, I know it's going to be filled with smoke, so it's my decision to go or not. Usually I don't.

[Mags 112]

One has to accept that ANY source is funded somewhere, and that generally there is bias. That's what I'm asking you to realise, Steven. I'm not denying that it's a biased source. But I love the way that the inherent bias is always made obvious when a study is performed by someone who is paid by the tobacco industries, but completely ignored when studies are funded by groups known to be little more than anti-smoking facists.

It's an emotional issue because people often cannot look beyond their own personal experiences and consider the pure science. Take the case that has been presented that using a cell phone gives off radiowaves which can cause brain tumours. This information is largely ignored, yet the risk of second-hand smoke could be compared with the risk of sitting next to someone (on a train, let's say, where you're in close proximity) who spends thirty minutes on their cell phone. I don't see the outcry there....

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.

She attributed it to that. Not her doctor, not a research scientist, but a teacher. Where's the science in what Alex said? There is none. It's an emotional response. "My mother died from lung cancer" is an emotional response - it is a response that shows and inherent and non-scientific bias. Yet it's somehow more valid that others. (And I do offer my condolences to people who lost loved ones through cancer - I've seen it and I know it's not pleasant.)

This is why I try not to fight this battle too often - you can't fight emotion with reason. I am, however, happy to agree to disagree.

For future reference, Small Cell Lung Cancer is one of the most aggressive forms of cancer. From diagnosis to death the average life expectancy is 3 months. 99.9% of sufferers are smokers. That is a fact.

It is an incredibly painful way to die.

Small cell lung cancer is usually found in people who smoke or who used to smoke cigarettes. A doctor should be seen if there are any of the following symptoms: a cough or chest pain that doesn't go away, a wheezing sound when breathing, shortness of breath, coughing up blood, hoarseness, or swelling in the face and neck.

http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cancernet/200040.html

[pj1959us 0]

Here in Cook County (specifically south; Orland Park, Tinley Park, etc) the smoking ban was recently lifted, because after it was imposed businesses complained of losing half of their customers.

It doesn't usually bother me in restaurants. I sit in non-smoking and I have yet to be bothered with smoke. When I go to a bar or a pool hall, I know it's going to be filled with smoke, so it's my decision to go or not. Usually I don't.

This is one of the issues I have a real problem with...the government telling business owners that their establishments must be non-smoking.

A business owner should be able to determine whether or not they want to allow smoking or not. A sign can be displayed if the restaurant/bar/whathaveyou allows smoking and one can decide whether they want to go inside or not. A business owner should not be told what to do with their own business.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Here in Cook County (specifically south; Orland Park, Tinley Park, etc) the smoking ban was recently lifted, because after it was imposed businesses complained of losing half of their customers.

It doesn't usually bother me in restaurants. I sit in non-smoking and I have yet to be bothered with smoke. When I go to a bar or a pool hall, I know it's going to be filled with smoke, so it's my decision to go or not. Usually I don't.

This is one of the issues I have a real problem with...the government telling business owners that their establishments must be non-smoking.

A business owner should be able to determine whether or not they want to allow smoking or not. A sign can be displayed if the restaurant/bar/whathaveyou allows smoking and one can decide whether they want to go inside or not. A business owner should not be told what to do with their own business.

Well like it or not restaurant are told what to do with their businesses - what do you think the Health Department does? And I've a feeling they do take a dim view to a chef, for example long-ashing over the food.