[nursinghumor]

In case there was any lingering ambiguity on the safety of exposure:

Secondhand Smoke a Threat to All, Surgeon General Warns:"No amount of secondhand smoke is safe. And the only way to protect nonsmokers is through smoke-free environments. Separating smokers and nonsmokers within the same air space or relying on sophisticated ventilation systems just doesn't work.

That's the conclusion of a new U.S. Surgeon General's report issued Tuesday, which determined that nonsmokers who were exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work had a 25 percent to 30 percent increased risk of developing heart disease and a 20 percent to 30 percent increased risk for lung cancer."
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/n...ory_35390.html

Quit smoking when I got together with my wife Melanie round 1998. Not so much because she harped on me about it (Mel was an Oncology nurse of 20 years at the time), but I was very aware of how nonsmokers reacted when they got a whiff of the smoke on me when I got back from breaks, came home from work (I never smoked in the house). Had seen enough smokers as Lung CA, COPD, etc patients to convince me I didn't want to end up like them.

Makes life interesting when we go to my Mom's place (a smoker of 30 years). Made it clear long ago we didn't want her smoking around my daughter. I'm glad it is crystal clear now that no amount of smoke is safe.

To this day, every time I see or smell a cigarette, ashtray or people smoking, I get the urge.

To be frank, to **** with Smoker's Rights.

Andrew Lopez, RN
Nursing Associations, Degree Programs Online, Jokes, Schools, Scrubs & More
http://www.4nursing.com

[tenexe]

I understand the general point you are trying to make but I am going to have to make a couple of points on the other side of the argument. First and foremost where is the science, there is a lot of hysteria and political correctness here but in a valid study by the World Health Organization there is little to no evidence that second hand smoke is as dangerous as its made out to be. Here is a link to the actual study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
I'm sorry, I know it's politically incorrect but first of all how do they know that the people that develop these diseases would not have contracted them anyway. The only way to actually prove that would be to transport them back through time and remove the influence and see if they don't contract the disease. these studies and opinions function without any real control. These are also the same people that maintain that marijuana has no medicinal value and continue to keep it illegal while allowing alcohol to continue to be sold. As far as infringing on the rights of others. Smokers do have rights as well. The government needs to get out of our lives. By the way I am not a smoker, and also I'm allergic to perfume, so that needs to be outlawed in public as well because it poses a public health threat to people. So do elderly drivers, they are much more likely to have an accident such as the elderly man who hit 27 people recently. Get them off the road. Where will this end. If people don't like smoke, stay away from smokey areas or stay home. As far as businesses: they should be able to decide if they want to allow smoking. And as far as businesses not being hurt by the no smoking ban, that is an outright lie. There are articles all over the internet about businesses being hurt by this. I also go to New York frequently and have friends who do smoke. Unfortunately, we pack food or wait until we back in PA to eat, nor do we go to the bars or restaurants in NY because they can't smoke. That is direct business lost from firsthand experience. The last thing I want to comment on is statistics. Do we even have to say how statistics can be manipulated to paint any picture that needs to be painted. In addition there are more studies out there that refute this argument besides the one in the world health organization, but "the surgeon general" has slammed the book on the debate? I don't think so, who is he? God? And once again, where's the science? Don't see any in this article, just a bunch of unsubstantiated numbers and opinions.

[nursinghumor]

Originally Posted by tenexe

I understand the general point you are trying to make but I am going to have to make a couple of points on the other side of the argument. First and foremost where is the science, there is a lot of hysteria and political correctness here but in a valid study by the World Health Organization there is little to no evidence that second hand smoke is as dangerous as its made out to be. Here is a link to the actual study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

I'm not impressed by the study, specially the "Neither case subjects nor control subjects had smoked more than 400 cigarettes in their lifetime." You don't just start, then stop smoking after a few packs.

I'm also not impressed that they focused on lung cancer where oral, esophageal, and almost every other type of cancer risk is increased with smoking, second haNd smoke.

Sounds like another biased study put together by the tobacco companies to help make their case.

Andrew Lopez, RN
http://www.4nursing.com

[nursinghumor]

Originally Posted by tenexe

I'm sorry, I know it's politically incorrect but first of all how do they know that the people that develop these diseases would not have contracted them anyway. The only way to actually prove that would be to transport them back through time and remove the influence and see if they don't contract the disease.

They compare the number of people exposed to secondhand smoke with a control group that has not been exposed, and see how many are coming down with asthma, cancer, heart disease, etc.

The number of illnesses in the group exposed to secondhand smoke is usually much higher that the non-exposed group.

No need for a time machine.

Andrew Lopez, RN
http://www.4nursing.com

[nursinghumor]

Originally Posted by tenexe

As far as infringing on the rights of others. Smokers do have rights as well. The government needs to get out of our lives.

To **** with Smoker's Rights. They don't have any when their disgusting and deadly habit endangers the health of others.

If they want to kill themselves in their own homes, feel free. Don't bring it to my place of work, restaurant or bar.

Andrew Lopez, RN
Nursing Associations, Degree Programs Online, Jokes, Schools, Scrubs & More
http://www.4nursing.com

[nursinghumor]

Originally Posted by tenexe

If people don't like smoke, stay away from smokey areas or stay home. As far as businesses: they should be able to decide if they want to allow smoking. And as far as businesses not being hurt by the no smoking ban, that is an outright lie.

It's not a matter of personal preference anymore, it is a public health issue. If businesses won't comply voluntarily, the government should step in.

No smoker has the right to put my health in jeopardy. Businesses will have to suffer unless they want to start taking responsibility (in terms of large lawsuits, settlements) for the diseases they are facilitating.

Andrew Lopez, RN
Nursing Associations, Degree Programs Online, Jokes, Schools, Scrubs & More
http://www.4nursing.com

[tenexe]

I think your points are interesting and selective as you only responded to the issues that you thought you could validate. I'll respond to each of these in turn.

As far as the WHO, I seriously doubt that they are funded by the tobacco companies, that is just silly. In addition they at least provided a methodology, whether you agree with it or not. The other study provided absolutely NO methodology. In addition this issue is about second hand smoke, not smoking. Regardless the methodology included people with cancer and without, with the same amount of cigarette usage so it really doesn't matter how many cigarettes they smoked, they are comparing apples to apples. You can say it is a comparative cross section and doesn't represent a strong longitudinal study but you can't say it's any more invalid than any other study out there for the reasons I will explain in the next paragraph.

Another issue not addressed is the manipulation and use of statistics and information gathering that can validate any predrawn conclusion. If I want to prove that smoking is harmful (just a carved out example) I will interview 25 smokers and 25 nonsmokers as well as the people who live in their households. I will make sure that the twenty five smokers have a longstanding history of heart disease, cancer and other clearly proven Genetic factors predisposing them to these conditions. I will also make sure that they work in high stress jobs, are obese and eat a very poor diet. I will make sure that the 25 non-smokers are healthy, in good relationships, have little stress in their life, have absolutey no history of heart disease, cancer etc, in their family tree and that most people in their families have lived an extremely long time. Then I will wait and compile my data. When I report outcomes I won't mention all the inclusionary criteria that ended up pushing people out of my "random" and control group. This is just a small example of how statistics are gathered and twisted to support any conclusion. The other problem is that with people there is no absolute control. For something to be a control you have to be able to control every aspect that would have an effect which is impossible to do with people. The way you described the process is very simplistic and misleading.

As far as them not taking their habit to "my" restaurant or bar. When you own a restaurant or bar then you can make that decision, until you do it is just as much the smokers bar as it is yours. It should continue to be up to the business owner as to whether to allow smoking or not. If you don't want to be around smoke than don't patronize organizations that allow smoking, which brings me to another point that I previously made that you disregarded. Perfume should be illegal in public places since people are allergic. I'm allergic to peanuts and when I go to a public place where peanuts are served and the smell bothers me I don't insist that everyone else there stop eating peanuts and that they be banned for my convenience. No, I just don't go to those places. Why are these issues not addressed? Because it's not politically correct and part of the widespread hysteria related to the smoking issue.

The last main point I want to address is the concept that "businesses will have to suffer unless they want to start taking responsibility (in terms of large lawsuits, settlements) for the diseases they are facilitating". Facilitating how? are they forcing people to smoke? are they forcing people to patronize their establishments? This is the primary take no responsibility for your own actions mindset that has bogged down our legal system and pervaded every aspect of our society.

To sum this up I will use your quote regarding smoking to one that effects me and see if you agree with my stance. No peanut eater has the right to put my heath in jeopardy. The next time I go to the restaurant up the street that lets people eat peanuts and throw the husks on the floor I am going to tell the people that are eating the peanuts that they can't do it anymore an that I'm going to sue the owner of the restaurant if I have an allergic reaction. I am going to force everyone else to accomodate me regardless of the other peoples rights. After all, It's all about me? Isn't it.

Just remember, Margarine is better than butter, hydrogenated oils are fine. Isn't that what the government and the Surgeon General told us once with absolute authority. It's not that I think that smoking is good for you or that the Surgeon General is wrong, but when the basis of an argument is "a study" and the core of the argument uses the words, "disgusting" "to **** with smokers rights" "kill themselves" the issue is clearly being responded to in an emotionally charged manner. Unfortunately when emotions get involved objectively and clarity go out the window.

[nursinghumor]

Originally Posted by tenexe

I think your points are interesting and selective as you only responded to the issues that you thought you could validate. I'll respond to each of these in turn.

As far as the WHO, I seriously doubt that they are funded by the tobacco companies, that is just silly. In addition they at least provided a methodology, whether you agree with it or not. The other study provided absolutely NO methodology. In addition this issue is about second hand smoke, not smoking. Regardless the methodology included people with cancer and without, with the same amount of cigarette usage so it really doesn't matter how many cigarettes they smoked, they are comparing apples to apples. You can say it is a comparative cross section and doesn't represent a strong longitudinal study but you can't say it's any more invalid than any other study out there for the reasons I will explain in the next paragraph.

Another issue not addressed is the manipulation and use of statistics and information gathering that can validate any predrawn conclusion. If I want to prove that smoking is harmful (just a carved out example) I will interview 25 smokers and 25 nonsmokers as well as the people who live in their households. I will make sure that the twenty five smokers have a longstanding history of heart disease, cancer and other clearly proven Genetic factors predisposing them to these conditions. I will also make sure that they work in high stress jobs, are obese and eat a very poor diet. I will make sure that the 25 non-smokers are healthy, in good relationships, have little stress in their life, have absolutey no history of heart disease, cancer etc, in their family tree and that most people in their families have lived an extremely long time. Then I will wait and compile my data. When I report outcomes I won't mention all the inclusionary criteria that ended up pushing people out of my "random" and control group. This is just a small example of how statistics are gathered and twisted to support any conclusion. The other problem is that with people there is no absolute control. For something to be a control you have to be able to control every aspect that would have an effect which is impossible to do with people. The way you described the process is very simplistic and misleading.

As far as them not taking their habit to "my" restaurant or bar. When you own a restaurant or bar then you can make that decision, until you do it is just as much the smokers bar as it is yours. It should continue to be up to the business owner as to whether to allow smoking or not. If you don't want to be around smoke than don't patronize organizations that allow smoking, which brings me to another point that I previously made that you disregarded. Perfume should be illegal in public places since people are allergic. I'm allergic to peanuts and when I go to a public place where peanuts are served and the smell bothers me I don't insist that everyone else there stop eating peanuts and that they be banned for my convenience. No, I just don't go to those places. Why are these issues not addressed? Because it's not politically correct and part of the widespread hysteria related to the smoking issue.

The last main point I want to address is the concept that "businesses will have to suffer unless they want to start taking responsibility (in terms of large lawsuits, settlements) for the diseases they are facilitating". Facilitating how? are they forcing people to smoke? are they forcing people to patronize their establishments? This is the primary take no responsibility for your own actions mindset that has bogged down our legal system and pervaded every aspect of our society.

To sum this up I will use your quote regarding smoking to one that effects me and see if you agree with my stance. No peanut eater has the right to put my heath in jeopardy. The next time I go to the restaurant up the street that lets people eat peanuts and throw the husks on the floor I am going to tell the people that are eating the peanuts that they can't do it anymore an that I'm going to sue the owner of the restaurant if I have an allergic reaction. I am going to force everyone else to accomodate me regardless of the other peoples rights. After all, It's all about me? Isn't it.

Just remember, Margarine is better than butter, hydrogenated oils are fine. Isn't that what the government and the Surgeon General told us once with absolute authority. It's not that I think that smoking is good for you or that the Surgeon General is wrong, but when the basis of an argument is "a study" and the core of the argument uses the words, "disgusting" "to **** with smokers rights" "kill themselves" the issue is clearly being responded to in an emotionally charged manner. Unfortunately when emotions get involved objectively and clarity go out the window.

I think you have a lot of time on your hands. It's a pity you're spending it defending something as obviously harmful to the public as secondhand smoke.

I suppose you think a little mercury, lead, arsenic in our water supply is ok too?

Andrew Lopez, RN
Nursing Associations, Degree Programs Online, Jokes, Schools, Scrubs & More
http://www.4nursing.com

[tenexe]

Obvious you have missed the point completely. I never said that second hand smoke was good for you, nor did I say smoking was good for you. I merely implied that the veracity of your argument was dependent upon questionable science rather than hard core fact. You have failed to provide any evidence of hardcore fact other than subtle negative comments towards me. You have avoided responding to any comments about how the information could be tampered with or the infringement on the rights of others. Yes living around others is dangerous, but personal freedom is extremely important in a world where the government is taking more control over our lives and finances and stripping us of our freedoms I find it very easy to question not only the science they use to establish there policies but the people and organizations behind them. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, about 3,000 second-hand smoke deaths occur in the United States each year. The National Highway Transpor-tation Safety Board reports that more than twice as many people are killed by drunk drivers. So why isn't alcohol banned in public. You like to drink don't you. Well your drinking is putting me and my family at risk! According to the EPA drinking clearly poses a greater risk to our health than second hand smoke. Or is the EPA working for the tobacco industry also. An immature way of trying to discredit the validity of an organization.

There are much bigger fish to fry then smoking. You have proven that in your responses because although I have shown how this information can be twisted you still respond with "I suppose you think a little mercury, lead, arsenic in our water supply is ok too"? Instead of a well thought out remark, you reduce it to a personal attack. Although I don't know anything about mercury or arsenic If you like I can explain how recycling harms the environment, and wastes natural resources, and costs us a great deal of money to do so, but I'm sure you have already drank the government kool aid on that one as well.

[nursinghumor]

Originally Posted by tenexe

Obvious you have missed the point of what I'm defending and would continue to do so. This is a matter of rights, and governement staying out of our lives. Yes living in dangerous, living around others is dangerous, but personal freedom is extremely important in a world where the government is taking more control over our lives and finances and stripping us of our freedoms.

To say it is a matter of rights, is to imply or suggest that smokers have them to start with, or that their "personal freedom" to smoke (or expose others to smoke) is guaranteed by law (like the right to own property, freedom of speech, etc)

There is no such right or guarantee by law of those personal freedoms to smokers. Thus no point to your "bigger picture."

When secondhand smoke became an identified environmental pollutant, capable of causing harm, the LAWS governing a right to a safe workplace, freedom from harm did come into play and continue to press this issue.

Andrew Lopez, RN
Nursing Associations, Degree Programs Online, Jokes, Schools, Scrubs & More
http://www.4nursing.com